Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

To Infinity and Beyond

  1. Aug 19, 2013 #1
    To those who have seen Toy Story please forgive title.
    This subject has I believe turned at least one mathematician mad, so I am hoping there are some maths people out there willing to take a chance.
    We need a starting point to get things moving either a line, a 2d surface or a 3d space as long as its infinite in all directions, I would suggest a line as being the simplist.
    The idea is to see if the basic principles of Relativity and Quantum Theory can be fitted into an understanding of such a thing. I have an idea this may not be as strange as it first seems.
    We need to state those principles first with a basic meaning of each so there is no argument later on.
    I would suggest the following as a start, 1. Uncertainty, 2. Exclusion, and 3.Simulaneity, if someone would like to add a basic meaning, there are people more qualified than me for this, and add any others that may be of relevance and correct my spelling if necessary.
    This is meant to be a light hearted discussion that may have the potential to go somewhere. It would be nice to get any arguments out of the way before we get going properly.
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 19, 2013 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It may just be me, but I have NO idea what you are talking about or what you are asking.
  4. Aug 19, 2013 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    No, it's not just you. I understand nothing.
  5. Aug 19, 2013 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

  6. Aug 19, 2013 #5
    Do you mean whether you can generalize GR or QM to situations that are not physical?

    If so, then maybe the following is an answer. From mathematical point of view, you can do QM whenever you have a C*-algebra or an orthomodular lattice. And you can do GR whenever you you have a pseudo-Riemannian manifold. This is only mathematical though, but it might be interesting to see what the analogs of the physical theory are in an entirely different setting.
  7. Aug 19, 2013 #6
    you joking right?
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2013
  8. Aug 19, 2013 #7
    Not really, no.
  9. Aug 19, 2013 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Hmm.... I tried to buy some of those on Ebay once, but the only thing in the box was a dead cat.
  10. Aug 19, 2013 #9
    You shouldn't have opened the box. Now you killed a cat.
  11. Aug 19, 2013 #10
    please do not observe the cat.
    it will change quantum states.
  12. Aug 19, 2013 #11
  13. Aug 19, 2013 #12
    This thread is in a superposition of being about Toy Story and of not being about Toy Story.

    It doesn't seem to 'collapse' into one or the other when you observe it though.
  14. Aug 19, 2013 #13

    + 1/ sqrt3 lol cat
  15. Aug 19, 2013 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No, it just seems to collapse into nonsense. Adrian07, are you getting the picture here?
  16. Aug 20, 2013 #15
    I take it no-one has been following marcus threads on Smolins latest work about why these laws. The idea was to see if that question could be answered using infinity as a starting point or if those laws are required to make sense of our universe within an infinite one.
    An infinity long line has no ends,( boundaries) or specific center just as our universe has no boundaries/edges and no center. By no specific center an easier analogy would be the line that describes the circumference of a circle has no specific center point. If it has no beginning or end then where's the center.
    It would seem though that most have already made their minds up about such a discussion.
  17. Aug 20, 2013 #16


    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    I have, and I've also seen a video where Smolin describes the ideas. I think it's interesting, but it's still work in progress and in its infancy as I understand it.

    I think the posters in this thread just expressed that they did not understand post #1 (except micromass #5, who made an attempt to put in on track).

    There might be people who might have something to say about it, but to me it seems a technical discussion on fundamental physics may not be appropriate in the forum "General Discussion", I think - this is more "Beyond the Standard Model", isn't it?

    EDIT: (I thought I might add the links for others who read this)
    Here's the Smolin seminar: Pirsa: 13020146 - The universe as a process of unique events.
    Here's the PF thread about Smolins ideas.
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2013
  18. Aug 20, 2013 #17
    I wish to defend my position on this matter if I may. We have in this forum a thread about good writers and what it takes to be a good writer. I believe Adrian did not present the subject well and therefore was partially responsible for the mis-understanding. He mentions "Toy Story", the movie I believe, in the first sentence. The first sentence of an essay usually describes the theme of everything that follows so I take that to mean this is about Toy Story. Then continues:

    My question then is, "get what moving?" and "the simplest of what". Again, these points are not clear and should be qualified since nothing has come before this which might alert the reader.

    Then goes on:

    What thing? You have not explained the "thing" you are referring to.

    And I could continue. The entire post is unacceptable from a writing perspective in my opinion.

    It would have been much, much better to begin the theme sentence (first sentence) with something like:

    "I'm interested in Smolin's new book "Time Reborn". See thread here <add link> and was wondering if anyone here would like to talk about it in an informal manner so I'm not posting it in the big house (Beyond the Standard Model)."

    That's much better and would have avoided the misunderstanding.

    Edit: Actually when I first saw the thread I thought it was about G. Gamow's book which I read a long time ago so I was interested.
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2013
  19. Aug 20, 2013 #18


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    +1 on that.
  20. Aug 21, 2013 #19
    Ok the first line was meant to be a Joke for those that have a sense of humour.
    The title however, which strictly speaking was the first line, was about infinity.
    Has that cleared it up.
    An anology A wood carver starts with a block of wood when making a carving not a pile of sawdust, why then do mathematicians and physicists think its easier to start with a pile of sawdust.
    For those who do not understand the final carving represents the universe, the laws of physics the carvers tools, the block of wood infinity, the sawdust the piles of numbers you are trying to fit together.
    Yes you are making a good job of it and may get the answers you are seeking, but doing it the hard way like a wood carver who has not discovered why his tools are the shape they are.
  21. Aug 21, 2013 #20
    Go home poster, you're drunk.
  22. Aug 21, 2013 #21


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    ...and whatever you do, don't start writing equations. We'd hate to have to cite you for drunk deriving as well. :biggrin:
  23. Aug 21, 2013 #22


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I think the reason scientists 'start with sawdust' is because they want to know the fundamentals of the universe, so why not start with fundamentals.

    So when solving physical problems, what would it look like to "start with the sculpture"?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook