Philosophy Now Forum

Its obvious to me that I'm here because of an evolutionary proccess
and that proccess is down to biological function
and thats down, in its most basic form, to abiogenesis
and thats down to chemical proccess
and thats down to a physical proccess
and thats down to a mechanical proccess
and thats down to a quantum mechanical proccess
e.t.c.

There reaches a point though where I have to stop
where i reach a proccess or "thing" which has nothing made from it but itself.
Now the implication for me is

this particle or proccess has to be infinite in one way or another (most definately temporally and in at least in one other dimension)
(i'm not implying something that has a will, the oposite infact something that has acomplete unwill)

Is infinitythat big of a deal with the universe?

Hi Joshkay

As photons are forever photons and matter once that it is converted to photons will never be matter again, I'm also wondering about the infinity. But still this issue of matter and photons surely gives some direction?

It seems that you're question may be too big to be answered as one has yet some steps to go until it is determined what is what.

Still exciting, I'm curious where this goes! Cheers!

Joshkay wrote:Its obvious to me that I'm here because of an evolutionary proccess
and that proccess is down to biological function
and thats down, in its most basic form, to abiogenesis
and thats down to chemical proccess
and thats down to a physical proccess
and thats down to a mechanical proccess
and thats down to a quantum mechanical proccess
e.t.c.

There reaches a point though where I have to stop
where i reach a proccess or "thing" which has nothing made from it but itself.
Now the implication for me is

this particle or proccess has to be infinite in one way or another (most definately temporally and in at least in one other dimension)
(i'm not implying something that has a will, the oposite infact something that has acomplete unwill)

Is infinitythat big of a deal with the universe?

All known conclusions are unsatisfactory:
1. "It's always been there." -> Nothin in our experience lasts forever
2. "It was created from nothing." -> Nothin in our experience is created from nothing (except virtual particles? But, iIuc, they are a result of the EM field).
3. "It's a cyclic process (closed timelike curve?)" -> Same as 1. pretty much. How did the cycle come to be?

Aetixintro wrote:Hi Joshkay

As photons are forever photons and matter once that it is converted to photons will never be matter again,

Not entirely true. Interaction of two high-energy γ photons can result in the destruction of the photons and creation of matter-antimatter couples (with γ-rays that are emitted from radioactive materials on earth, most commonly electron-positron pairs).

i blame blame wrote:Not entirely true. Interaction of two high-energy γ photons can result in the destruction of the photons and creation of matter-antimatter couples (with γ-rays that are emitted from radioactive materials on earth, most commonly electron-positron pairs).

Do you have a reference for that? I wonder about the nature of this "interaction". What can it be? How is it created in experiment? Where have you obtained this?

Aetixintro wrote:

i blame blame wrote:Not entirely true. Interaction of two high-energy γ photons can result in the destruction of the photons and creation of matter-antimatter couples (with γ-rays that are emitted from radioactive materials on earth, most commonly electron-positron pairs).

Do you have a reference for that? I wonder about the nature of this "interaction". What can it be? How is it created in experiment? Where have you obtained this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

i blame blame
The photoelectric effect involves nucleus and a photon.
You've stated that:

Interaction of two high-energy γ photons...

This is not the photoelectric effect. Digression besides, what is the explanation behind the continued stream of electrical power that is generated by electrons? It seems to be pushing in one direction only. In the case of the conversion of electricity to light by the light bulb, what's the story there? I guess I'm puzzled by electricity, but I see no direct conversion/connection with the photons either by themselves or in interaction with one another.

Aetixintro wrote:...I guess I'm puzzled by electricity, ...

Not to criticise but is not all of Physics puzzled by this?

Arising_uk
That's my impression, too! I may have overlooked some, but not that much... Photons...

Re: How do you deal with infinity.


One step at a time.

(Resisted saying that every time I saw the thread title.)

Aetixintro wrote:i blame blame
The photoelectric effect involves nucleus and a photon.

False. The photelectric effect is an interaction between a photon and an electron: A photon that carries enough energy interacts with an electron that is bound to an atom or a metal lattice, giving it its energy and being destroyed in the process. This energy is transformed into kinetic energy, causing the electron to leave the solid. Alternatively, an electron in the valence band of a semiconductor can receive the energy of a photon and be transferred into the conduction band, where it can generate a current, if a voltage is applied. Most photodetection mechanisms today work this way, as do photovoltaic cells.
You've stated that:

Aetixintro wrote:This is not the photoelectric effect.

I never claimed it was.

Aetixintro wrote:Digression besides, what is the explanation behind the continued stream of electrical power that is generated by electrons? It seems to be pushing in one direction only.

If there is a voltage applied on a wire, electrons in the conduction band of the crystal lattice that makes up the wire will experience this voltage as a potential difference and flow toward a state of lower potential energy.

Aetixintro wrote:In the case of the conversion of electricity to light by the light bulb, what's the story there? I guess I'm puzzled by electricity, but I see no direct conversion/connection with the photons either by themselves or in interaction with one another.

Electrons flowing through a conductor lose some of their kinetic energy to the positively charged ions (who are bathing in a lake of nearly free electrons, making the conductor as a whole neutral) that make up the conductor as they interact with their electric fields. This is called resistance. These atoms in turn experience the electrons' fields and begin to jiggle about. The conductor heats up. Now it follows from Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, that a magnetic field comes to be when a charge is accelerated. When a charge oscillates, it accelerates in one direction, then accelerates in the other etc. So, an electromagnetic wave is created. The hotter it gets, the faster the ions oscillate, and the higher the energy and frequency, or the lower the wavelength of the emitted waves become. Since this energy is quantized, we call individual wave packets photons.
When you push just a little current through, the wire will get mildly warm, emitting some microwaves and perhaps some infrared. When you heat it up some more, you will begin to see a faint red glow (the longest visible wavelength), then yellow and so on.

Thanks, i blame blame!
Sorry about the stuff on Photoelectric effect, let's stick to the Pair Production! Sure, I agree with you as with every good physics book! I affirm that you still have failed to supply your case of "Interaction of two high-energy γ photons..." as I have never heard or read about any such interaction that's supposed to result in new particles! This is the main point!

The case of electricity. Again, I agree with your version of the (conventional) physics in year 2009. However, it's not the issue. The issue is on how it's possible for electrons to carry power from f. x. water dam power production to whatever use there is. The actual matter in the electrical cables is never consumed which should somehow mean that the electrons that act as medium for power transport fall back to the start. Yet, this assumed fall-back is seldom or never accounted for in the ordinary physics literature. This seems to be one of the holes in physics. Your story doesn't fill this hole, I think. Just this for now! Cheers!

in reference to i blame blame's first point towards josh kay

1. "It's always been there." -> Nothin in our experience lasts forever

what about conservation of energy? do we do away with it once we start talking about that infinite particle? thats the bit thats confusing me.

i blame blame wrote:All known conclusions are unsatisfactory:
1. "It's always been there." -> Nothin in our experience lasts forever
2. "It was created from nothing." -> Nothin in our experience is created from nothing (except virtual particles? But, iIuc, they are a result of the EM field).
3. "It's a cyclic process (closed timelike curve?)" -> Same as 1. pretty much. How did the cycle come to be?

If we're discussing infinity, how could our experience as finite beings remain relevant? It seems to me the only relevancy stems from our rational ability to consider the possibility. Infinity itself would already dictate that nothing in our experience would indicate its existence.

I also don't think it's cyclic because that would seem to negate the point of something being infinite. To say it's cyclic implicates that it is in a constant state of beginning and ending. The statement it's always been there would also be inaccurate because the nature of "always" implicates something that exists within the context of time which it wouldn't.

All known conclusions should be unsatisfactory because the nature of infinity is that there is no conclusion. However I do agree with the original idea of the thread which is that as finite beings in a finite universe we perceive a series of finite things with no possible ending. In order for something to be finite it must end. In order for something to end it must have somewhere to end. Therefore anything finite must at least exist within something else finite. So either we exist in an infinitely expanding infinite chain of finite things (which begs the question where does that exist), or infinity is.

INFINITY and GOD.

In scientific and popular publications we can see an often usage
of a word “infinity”.
For example: the space is infinite, time is infinite, and the Universe is infinite.
But anywhere it is not explained, how exactly the infinity is connected with
concreteness.
One understands infinity as the opportunity to move infinitely on a straight line,
never encountering any barrier.
The other understands infinity as an opportunity to increase the numbers infinitely
(atoms, stars, galaxies, the moments of time) 1, 2.3, … … etc,
always adding one point to the number already counted. Infinity +1 = tautology.
G. Hegel has named such understanding of infinity as “bad, unreasonable”.
Hegel thought, that in contrast to "bad" should exist also the
“Reasonable infinity “.By his opinion, the REASONABLE INFINITY
should be something positive and concrete.
At the same time he demanded to specify the following:
1) a connection between the infinite and the concrete,
2) a connection of infinity not only with quantity, but also with quality,
3) to explain an inconsistent character between the infinity and
the concreteness.
For thousands of years people used a concept of God in order
to explain this interrelation.
But Hegel would like to find more rational, scientific explanation.
======================
And how does the modern science refer to this question?
The concept of infinite, eternal, absolute means nothing
to a scientists, causes them bewilderment and "horror".
They do not understand how they could draw any real,
concrete conclusions from these characteristics.
A notions of "more", "less", "equally, "similar" could not be conformed
to a word infinity or eternity.
The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders,
has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
and cannot be considered in real processes.
Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
« If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.
They think out various mathematical cunnings
(method of renormalization) .
.However, R. Feynman said, that:
«The method of renormalizations is a way
to tidy up rubbish under a carpet».
Using artificial mathematical methods, it is possible to get out
of any theoretical difficulty, but the question remains:
«What relation does it have towards Nature? »
================
Whether it is possible to give a specific
characterization to a REASONABLE INFINITY?
Yes. It is possible.
1.
Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with
relict isotropic radiation T = 2,7K is absolute.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to extend and decrease
and, hence, in the future will reach T=0K.
2.
The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is
so small (the average density of all substance in the Universe
is approximately less than p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it is
impossible to keep gravitation law with such insignificantly
little mass and therefore the Universe as whole must be “open”,
endless, infinity.
3.
The cosmological constant of Universe is zero or near to it.
This physical quantity cannot “ close” the Universe therefore
the Universe is endless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
4.
Last August ( 2007), ground and satellite observations revealed
what appeared to be an enormous " hole in the universe,"
a mostly empty region of the sky, 900 million light-years
wide - about 5 billion trillion miles -…………
Where are the gravitational waves here ?
The gravity is zero.
If in the Universe astronomers found enormous spaces without
Any material mass or energy it means these spaces in state T=0K.
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2007/coldspot/

The Physics is first of all Vacuum: T=0K.
Vacuum is Infinity/Eternity /Absolute reference system.
===============. .
The Future of Science
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless
infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/topics/space
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18 ... everything
!
================ . .

Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
==========================.