[emailking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Falconoffury', '
')The idea that we are uncertain about the position and movement of particles means that we can't be sure that the laws of thermodynamics are immutable in all conditions and cases. I'm not saying the laws of thermodynamics are wrong. I'm just saying they may not always be 100% accurate. If we can overcome the heisenburg uncertainty principle with incredibly advanced measuring devices, then who knows?

[emailking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ElijahJones', '
')My mistake. It is 10^32>2^100 that is estimated to be more than all the particles in the universe. Certainly 2^1000 is larger than that, but of course we have systems with one thousand particles in them. The point is that the probabilities associated with certain states are known. I would bet on any game where someone said double your money on a bet that the difference in the number of heads to tails will be less than ten. But yeah scratch that remark , the rest is right.

[PolestaR]

666

[emailking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ElijahJones', '
')It appears the universe is infinite eh? How would finite being located about where you are sitting know that? So, ok the estimate was low, 10^80 is less than 2^1000 agreed?

[emailking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ElijahJones', '
')It might just be the way you worded it. The fact is that the universe will never be infinite, even if it expands forever. And this is simply because to do so it would have to expand "forever." Still we could say that it is effectively infinite as far as we are concerned. Yes, the old Hubble constant, is'nt that it? I have trouble being too concerned about it as any collapse will not see living humans around to observe it, and certainly nothing of this universe that amounts to a record will survive. Still facts are facts, thanks for pointing that out.

[emailking]

Jesus Christ. We've been over this before Elijah. I have bachelor degrees in physics and math. I have a masters in physics. I proved all of this to you through that little e-mail exercise we did. And yes, one of the reasons I'm being hard on you is because you have a history of making inaccurate claims when it comes to physics.

I have taken multiple courses in cosmology, astophysics, and general relativity. I have attended many lectures about the universe and its expansion, the cosmological constant, dark matter and dark energy, etc. I know what I'm talking about.

First of all, I am not claiming space is infinite. As I said, there are two possibilities: finite (and will recollapse) and infinite (and will expand forever). Infinite appears to be the more likely possibility, especially since the expansion of the universe is presently expanding.

The term infinite doesn't have any ambiguity. I mean what you mean. The universe is infinite means that if you consider a straight path, then this path goes forever and there are new galaxies and such to be discovered along this path that goes forever and never ends.

When I say there are infinitely many particles in the universe (provided the universe is in fact infinite) I mean that there is no number you can specify that is larger than the number of particles in the universe.

This is not a new concept Elijah. Physicists have known all of this for over 70 years now. General relativity allows two possibilities. I can refer you to textbooks easier than I can find articles that lay out such a basic principle at this point. It goes without saying in the physics community.

Here, I typed in "universe is infinite" in google (something you could have done). The first two results from the astronomy departments at Cornell and UCLA make it abundantly clear that the universe can be infinite.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=476

Will you give this up please? This is like trying to argue with someone who thinks "they'll think of something" with regards to PO.

[emailking]

Some more:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=132963
this is a discussion that will help answer some of your questions

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101shape.html
Nasa with a discussion about the shape of the universe and determining if it is infinite

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:NZ ... =firefox-a
Google cache (so "infinite" is highlighted) of Nova disucssing some of these issues.
key phrases: "a variety of observations suggest that our visible patch may be a small fraction—maybe an infinitely small fraction—of the whole universe. "

"If the universe sprung forth in this manner, then probably inflation has occurred in other places, perhaps an infinite number of places, beyond our horizon and outside of our time. "

"Our experience of the everyday world does not prepare us to grasp the concept of an infinite universe. "

[emailking]

I got frustrated having my teaching assistant job constantly threatened because the government doesn't provide research money for things like studying black holes or string theory.

I'm not abusing the term infinite. The physics forum link I provide you has detailed questions and answers about what it means for the universe to be infinite. You are stuck in this notion of a ball of matter exploding into a space that already existed. It's just not true. Space was created at the big bang.

Somebody want to back me up here and tell this guy he's wrong? In any case it doesn't matter. You are a stubborn idiot. As far as past inaccuracies, how about your claim that there are 10^32 particles in the universe? 12 g of carbon is 6.022 x 10^23 protons and neutrons.
Let's take 10^9 such sets. That gives us 6.022 x 10^32 protons and neutrons in the form of 12 billion grams of carbon, which is 12 million kilograms of carbon. The earth is 5.9742 times 10 to the 24 kilograms. So the mass of the earth is almost a billion billion times more massive than the amount of mass that you honestly thought was in the whole universe. I think this on its own shows that you aren't an authority figure when it comes to physics.

[emailking]

deleted

[emailking]

deleted

[emailking]

deleted

[emailking]

Sorry about all that. It wasn't letting my post through and I couldn't find the problem.

[emailking]

"Physics Forums threads are not professional journals."

I'm trying to give you a chance to understand. Instead of just dismissing it, why not read it and try to understand. Do you think they are just making it all up?

Here's something that may speak to you.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0606/0606448.pdf

Please search "infinite" and note the two instances they talk about an "infinitely extended, homogeneously matter-filled and expanding universe" and "...in which the volume of the universe is infinite."


"The boys at NASA are not going to call the universe infinite if in fact they mean it will expand forever. You know why I know that, because it would be a wrong statement and they are very serious people, plus they have some of the best mathematicians in the world working for them who would not tolerate calling a finite object that is expanding, infinite. The universe will never be infinite if it is not infinite right now."

Why are you so convinced of this? How much evidence do I have to present to the contrary before you will admit that maybe you're understanding of this matter is flawed?

[emailking]

"I've been around the issue long enough to know that people who talk down to others and act like they are insiders almost never are. For you to talk to someone you do not know using terms like layman is very insulting."

Yes, well, we have a history.

"Do you know enough about general relativity to understand how tensor calculus works? Can you formulate relativistic quantum mechanics or QFT, QCD?"

I absolutely understand how general relativity and tensor calculus work. I have what, 6 or 7 books on the subject I think? Been all the way through several of them. I took a whole course on QFT. QCD I understand the basics but not as well.

"Finally if I need to point it out I will. QM and GR don't like each other. If the phsyics communitity figures that out I'll be impressed. But while they are burning up the grant money, peak oil will be taking food out of the mouths of babes. But why have a conscience about that. Math and physics came along and gave the means to kill ourselves before we even knew how to live, but why cry over spilt milk?"

(I'm removing my comment here. Sorry if you already read it Elijah.)