Das Kalenderblatt 090720

19/07/2009 - 17:58 von WM | Report spam
The Physics of Infinity
An interesting question is if actual infinities could arise in the
physical world. Actually, they do in our physical theories. Quantum
field theory has to deal with infinite numbers and "renormalize".
Cosmology is even more abundant of infinities. How about Black Holes ?
And the Great Singularity, which is assumed to be at the Origin of the
whole Universe ? Whew !
But Serious now.
Of course, there is no physical evidence that infinities actually do
exist. Actually, there is physical evidence that actual infinities do
not exist. I have done my best to collect some substantial, physical,
empirical arguments. Most of these are certainly not my own.
(Remember !)
If the universe was infinite in space and time, then it would'nt
become dark at night. The whole sky would be as bright as the sun
itself. There would be an infinite number of stars, and all their
light would have reached us, since there would be an infinite time for
it to travel. This phenomenon is known as Olbers' Paradox. [ Google
("Olber's Paradox") gives more than 19,000 references ]
What do you think of the ever increasing entropy in an infinite
universe ?
Infinite vector spaces are used in Quantum Mechanics. However, they
all have a complete base, as if they were only vectorspaces with a
very large dimension. In fact, these Hilbert spaces cannot be
distinguished from a large, but finite vectorspace, as every physicist
knows from experience.
Therefore, from a physical point of view, the Universe seems to be
finite. Big Bang, Creation or Whatsoever ... And if it is finite in
space, then it must also be finite in time, and vice versa: the Theory
of Relativity leaves us no other choice.
[...]
Challenge to everyone:
Give me one valid counter-example: a piece of evidence that the
Infinite is actually useful in physics, in a theoretical or practical
sense (independent of wishful mathematical thinking, of course).

[Han de Bruijn: Natural philosophy]

http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl...ral.htm#oo

Gruß, WM
 

Lesen sie die antworten

#1 Herbert Newman
19/07/2009 - 18:28 | Warnen spam
Am Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:58:06 -0700 (PDT) schrieb WM:

Gruß, WM



Herr Mückenstein!

Könnten Sie bitte aufhören, dsm mit diesen off topic Beitràgen zuzumüllen?
Das Ganze nimmt inzwischen den Charakter von Spam an und widerspricht m. E.
der Charta von dsm.

Han de Bruijns Ansichten über the Physics of Infinity gehören nicht in
diese NG, sondern allenfalls in die NG de.sci.physik; besser aber noch in
die NG de.soc.crank.

Ok, einmal taucht eine "meta-mathematische" Aussage (sort of) auf:

"Infinite vector spaces are used in Quantum Mechanics. However, they
all have a complete base, as if they were only vectorspaces with a
very large dimension. In fact, these Hilbert spaces cannot be
distinguished from a large, but finite vectorspace, as every physicist
knows from experience."

Ja, klar. (Ich glaub mein Schwein pfeift!)

Auch sollte man vielleicht noch folgendes nachtragen:

"Sad Remark. When I say that Mathematics should be founded on Physics, then
I mean "common" physics. I am [...] quite reluctant to accept "advanced"
physics - like elementary particle physics or cosmology - as truly
scientific. I'm a bit ashamed that these nowadays areas of interest seem to
belong to physics anyway." (HdB)

Ne, da hat er schon Recht: Elementarteilchenphysik und Kosmologie sind
keine *wahre* Physik!!! (Aber das Thema, wie gesagt, bitte in de.sci.physik
bzw. de.soc.crank "weiter diskutieren", danke.)


Herbert

Ähnliche fragen