Null Physics anyone?

[Reality Check]

From what I have gathered so far is that space, which is infinite, is an infinite set consisting of nothingness. Existence is a subset of this nothingness.

Now, my logic tells me, if you magnify any particle sufficiently, you will find a great deal of nothing. A point here and a point there, with a great deal of nothing in between.

An example would be, if a split pea on the floor of the Basilica Dome represented the nucleus of an atom, the first electron would be a speck of dust on the ceiling. A great deal of empty space would lie between them.

Now, take matter/antimatter, infinite space as a set of nothingness, why could one not think that existence sums (adds) to nonexistence.
Or "Something is a subset of Nothing"
This is why I asked for a free book, so that I could actually read it before calling anyone a crackpot. It's called "Giving the benefit of doubt"

Heres what Blaise Pascal said a few hundred years ago.

"For in fact what is man in Nature
A Nothing in comparison with the Infinite
an All in comparison with the nothing
a mean between nothing and everything"

This is also why I believe that Philosophy of Science is still valid today, even if the sole outcome of philosophical musing is just another point of view.

Hi Skwinty:
Infinity is actually a really funny thing. There happen to be an infinite number of points between all pairs of points. So there is a sense in which there is no empty space between points.
There is also the question of whether we really consider a point to be nothing? In your example it does not matter how big a volume your atom occupies - there is always something in that volume. Likewise there will always be a point in any any volume.
Terry Witt defines a point to be nothing and so comes up with his null axiom. This ignores the fact that a point has a location in space and so contains information. Information is not nothing.

You are correct that Philosophy of Science is still valid today. But it still needs a basis in valid mathematics.

 

[Perpetual Student]

My last post on the "Null Physics" forum (concerning “infinity”) was substantially altered (presumably by Witt) by deleting critical comments about Witt's so called "premises" and leaving only a final fragment of what I said. My comments criticizing his “premises” as not being self evident and being merely quasi-mystical assertions seem to have rattled Mr. Witt. In my view altering my statements redefines Mr. Witt as a charlatan, and not merely a crackpot as I had suspected. Put a fork in him -- he is done!

 

[Paulhoff]

Isn’t it funny how 1 plus and infinity small number that is raised to the power of infinite is not an infinite number.

(1 + infinity small number) ^ infinity = 2.7182818284590452353602874713527 or e.

 

[Vorpal]

"Note his use of "theorem" to give his statements some credibility. All his statements are presented as "theorems". There are no axioms quoted or a reference to the axioms that his theorems are based on." How is this out of context?

Mea culpa. I apologize.

From what I have gathered so far is that space, which is infinite, is an infinite set consisting of nothingness. Existence is a subset of this nothingness. Now, my logic tells me, if you magnify any particle sufficiently, you will find a great deal of nothing. A point here and a point there, with a great deal of nothing in between. ...

You know, probably the most charitable interpretation of that is something like "physical structure (matter, etc.) is spacetime structure." But this is something that was done more than ninety years ago: stress, energy, and momentum are all identified with a certain kind of spacetime curvature through Einstein's field equation. However, GTR by itself says absolutely nothing about the whether the universe is finite or infinite (cf. his previously quoted theorem), and it's no boon to understanding to state things in such an obfuscated way if that was what he meant.

This is why I asked for a free book, so that I could actually read it before calling anyone a crackpot. It's called "Giving the benefit of doubt"

You appear to believe that this was not given. I've read his website, including his "white papers", and frankly I don't believe that anyone who misunderstands the topics at such a fundamental level can teach anything about physics. If you came across a book about medicine and you observed from its own website that the author misunderstands the basic workings of the immune system--not overly simplifies it for the audience, but gets it utterly wrong--would you really believe that anyone who dismisses his works in or about medicine are not justified?

"For in fact what is man in Nature
A Nothing in comparison with the Infinite
an All in comparison with the nothing
a mean between nothing and everything"

This is also why I believe that Philosophy of Science is still valid today, even if the sole outcome of philosophical musing is just another point of view.

It helps if the philosophy is based on actual science, however. Otherwise, it would be guilty of the same sin you're referring to: a Nothing telling the Universe how to be.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Isn’t it funny how 1 plus and infinity small number that is raised to the power of infinite is not an infinite number.

(1 + infinity small number) ^ infinity = 2.7182818284590452353602874713527 or e.

And the point is?

 

[Paulhoff]

And the point is?

And your point is.

Paul



I guess you're not a Perpetual Student

 

[Skwinty]

My last post on the "Null Physics" forum (concerning “infinity”) was substantially altered (presumably by Witt) by deleting critical comments about Witt's so called "premises" and leaving only a final fragment of what I said. My comments criticizing his “premises” as not being self evident and being merely quasi-mystical assertions seem to have rattled Mr. Witt. In my view altering my statements redefines Mr. Witt as a charlatan, and not merely a crackpot as I had suspected. Put a fork in him -- he is done!

Hi PS
Did Witt edit your original post or did he just quote certain bits in his reply.
If he only quoted certain bits in his reply, whats the problem?
However, if he censored your original post then you have a point, unless of course he was removing derogatory ad hominem statements.

Please clarify.

 

[Skwinty]

Mea culpa. I apologize..

No sweat, apology accepted.

You know, probably the most charitable interpretation of that is something like "physical structure (matter, etc.) is spacetime structure." But this is something that was done more than ninety years ago: stress, energy, and momentum are all identified with a certain kind of spacetime curvature through Einstein's field equation. However, GTR by itself says absolutely nothing about the whether the universe is finite or infinite (cf. his previously quoted theorem), and it's no boon to understanding to state things in such an obfuscated way if that was what he meant..

Well, when Einstein wrote GTR, it was assumed that the universe was static hence the cosmological constant. GTR as I understand was primarily about gravity and not the size of the universe. This theory initiated relativistic cosmology.

You appear to believe that this was not given. I've read his website, including his "white papers", and frankly I don't believe that anyone who misunderstands the topics at such a fundamental level can teach anything about physics. If you came across a book about medicine and you observed from its own website that the author misunderstands the basic workings of the immune system--not overly simplifies it for the audience, but gets it utterly wrong--would you really believe that anyone who dismisses his works in or about medicine are not justified?.

Bear in mind, the statements about the benefit of doubt relate to myself.
I said I wanted to read the book to determine its validity.

It helps if the philosophy is based on actual science, however. Otherwise, it would be guilty of the same sin you're referring to: a Nothing telling the Universe how to be.

What sin was I referring to?
I dont read in your innuendo what you are expecting me to.

 

[Skwinty]

Hi Skwinty:
Infinity is actually a really funny thing. There happen to be an infinite number of points between all pairs of points. So there is a sense in which there is no empty space between points.
There is also the question of whether we really consider a point to be nothing? In your example it does not matter how big a volume your atom occupies - there is always something in that volume. Likewise there will always be a point in any any volume.
Terry Witt defines a point to be nothing and so comes up with his null axiom. This ignores the fact that a point has a location in space and so contains information. Information is not nothing.

You are correct that Philosophy of Science is still valid today. But it still needs a basis in valid mathematics.

Hi RC

My understanding of a point is

"In geometry, topology and related branches of mathematics a spatial point describes a specific point within a given space that consists of neither volume, area, length, nor any other higher dimensional analogue. Thus, a point is a 0-dimensional object. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)

Doesn't this imply that a point is nothing.

The location information that a point contains is relative to whose view point.
Ours, inside space or outside space?

In any event , the point only occupies the location in space so why should it record and memorise that location. If the point moves, does it update this information?

With regards to Witt's mathematics, have you seen any math errors or only conceptual errors? I am not a mathematician so I wouldn't know.

 

[Reality Check]

Hi RC

My understanding of a point is

"In geometry, topology and related branches of mathematics a spatial point describes a specific point within a given space that consists of neither volume, area, length, nor any other higher dimensional analogue. Thus, a point is a 0-dimensional object. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)

Doesn't this imply that a point is nothing.

The location information that a point contains is relative to whose view point.
Ours, inside space or outside space?

In any event , the point only occupies the location in space so why should it record and memorise that location. If the point moves, does it update this information?

With regards to Witt's mathematics, have you seen any math errors or only conceptual errors? I am not a mathematician so I wouldn't know.

A point is a zero-dimensional object. This does not mean that it is "nothing". It also has location information but the exact nature of that informaiton is imposed by a coordinate system, e.g. using (x,y,z) versus radial coordinates. That makes it more than nothing, i.e. something. This can be relative to anyone's point of view.
I don't think that points "record and memorise that location". They merely exist at a location at a certain time.

Here is a fundemental mathematical error with Witt's concept of infinity:
Consider the concept of the point at infinity as used in the definition of the Riemann sphere.
In conventional mathematics we know that there is a point at infinity because trying to go beyond infinity leaves you at infinity (infinity + 1 = infinity).

In null mathematics the situation is more complex. If you have a point at infinity then there is an infinity that is bigger than that infinity since infinity + 1 > infinity. So to get to infinity you have to move the point to the new infinity. But that infinity is also smaller than infinity + 1. Thus null mathematics definition of infinity means that either the point at infinity does not exist or that there are a infinite number of points at infinity.
Either definition means that the Riemann sphere does not exist in null mathematics.

This definition of infinity may also cause problems with limits, e.g. what is the limit as a point tends to the point at infinity (which either does not exist or consists of an infinite number of points)?
Do improper integrals with infinite limits exist in null geometry?

 

[sol invictus]

To amplify on what RC said:

<snipped>
Doesn't this imply that a point is nothing.

No. For example in modern physics we know how to write down theories of point particles, which have mass, charge, angular momentum, momentum, energy, etc. In fact in the standard model of particle physics all matter is made of point particles. Whether they are truly points is impossible to say, but they are incredibly small if they are not, and the model in which they are treated as points is the most precisely accurate in the history of science.

The location information that a point contains is relative to whose view point.
Ours, inside space or outside space?

I don't understand the question.

In any event , the point only occupies the location in space so why should it record and memorise that location. If the point moves, does it update this information?

If by "point" you mean "point particle", it obeys the law of physics, which tell you (among other things) that it moves continuously through space.

With regards to Witt's mathematics, have you seen any math errors or only conceptual errors? I am not a mathematician so I wouldn't know.

The statement infinity+1>infinity is mathematically false, as I have already proven for you.

 

[ben m]

There's no point debating whether Witt's claims disagree with modern mathematics. We know they do, and Witt knows it too. Witt, however, thinks that math needs to be rewritten to do what he wants it to do. I quote:

I think that our mathematics ought to be a reflection of reality, not a thought project with no blueprint. The tie goes to reality, because reality is built far better, with far greater eloquence, than our mathematics. This is not an opinion; this is based on an understanding of the many implications of the null axiom, such as ultrastasis. My redefinition of infinity in NP is intended as a call to action to revise its mathematical formulation. I didn't expect the suggestion to be welcomed with open arms, coming as it is from outside the mathematics community.

There's no point trying to make sense of it. Witt's infinity is not Aleph-Null, it's a yet-to-be-defined quantity with whatever properties Witt wants it to have such that his physicsy statements appear true.

It's sort of an eigeninfinity.

 

[Skwinty]

No. For example in modern physics we know how to write down theories of point particles, which have mass, charge, angular momentum, momentum, energy, etc. In fact in the standard model of particle physics all matter is made of point particles. Whether they are truly points is impossible to say, but they are incredibly small if they are not, and the model in which they are treated as points is the most precisely accurate in the history of science..

What,to the best of current knowledge does a point particle consist of?
I recall TT saying that it consists of nothing.

I don't understand the question. .

A co-ordinate system has a reference point.
what I am asking is, if you are for example on Mars or 3000 light years away, would your co-ordinate system's point of origin be the same?
ie x,y,z or x1,y1,z1

If by "point" you mean "point particle", it obeys the law of physics, which tell you (among other things) that it moves continuously through space..

I mean a mathematical or geometric point as described by a co-ordinate system

The statement infinity+1>infinity is mathematically false, as I have already proven for you.

This goes back to the golf ball / football paradox.

1 cubic metre with 1000 golf balls is not equal to 100 cubic metres with 1000 footballs.(other than the quantity of balls). So if you continued ad infinitum, the one would always be bigger than the other.
I'm sorry, I cant see it any other way.
I will read about the Hilbert hotel and see if it becomes any clearer.
Who said philosophical musing had no meaning in science?

 

[Skwinty]

There's no point debating whether Witt's claims disagree with modern mathematics.

He is only saying that infinity needs to be re-defined surely.
He cant mean the whole of mathematics.

 

[Skwinty]

Here's a bunch of quotes from Victor Stenger, particle physicist (retired).

"The laws of physics are the laws of nothing"

"If the laws of physics are the same laws as the laws of an empty void, the transition from nothing to something may not have been as difficult as people have assumed. Our universe may be no more than re-arranged, re-structured nothingness"

"On the face of it, symmetry appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with modern physics"

Now , I understand that "nothing" the "void" is the very epitomy of symmetry.

Isn't this precisely what Witt is saying.
Does this make Stenger a crackpot as well.

 

[sol invictus]

What,to the best of current knowledge does a point particle consist of?
I recall TT saying that it consists of nothing.

The goal of elementary particle physics is to answer that question. Our current paradigm includes various possibilities. The simplest one (and that of our best model, which is incredibly accurate) is that there exist truly elementary point particles which cannot be divided further. So they consist only of themselves, if you want.

A co-ordinate system has a reference point.
what I am asking is, if you are for example on Mars or 3000 light years away, would your co-ordinate system's point of origin be the same?
ie x,y,z or x1,y1,z1

I think you may be a little confused about the concept of coordinate system. It's just an arbitrary set of labels for points. You can put the origin wherever you choose, regardless of where you are.

I mean a mathematical or geometric point as described by a co-ordinate system

In physics we often include time in the specification of points. Such a thing can't move, since it exists only at an instant of time. A point particle, as time passes, sweeps out a line of such points.

1 cubic metre with 1000 golf balls is not equal to 100 cubic metres with 1000 footballs.(other than the quantity of balls). So if you continued ad infinitum, the one would always be bigger than the other.
I'm sorry, I cant see it any other way.

I don't think I explained that very well. The point is, you have to be very careful how you define things. There is a valid sense in which if you built up your collection the way you describe the football collection would always be larger in volume. But you cannot simply compare infinities without knowing how you arrived at them. Once both are volumes are infinite, they can no longer be compared without the information about how you got there. This is called taking a "limit" in mathematics.

That should be obvious, since we could also arrive at infinite volume for both collections by using 100 cubic meters of golf balls for every one of footballs, and then your logic would say the golfballs are bigger... even though in both cases, both are infinite. See the problem?

I will read about the Hilbert hotel and see if it becomes any clearer.
Who said philosophical musing had no meaning in science?

Philosophy is the set of things too vague to be science. This, on the other hand, is mathematics.

 

[sol invictus]

Isn't this precisely what Witt is saying.

Doesn't sound like it to me.

But regardless, I'm sure Stenger doesn't try to "prove" "theorems" starting from those "axioms". Nor does he ignore logical consistency, experimental results, mathematics, and the real world.

So no, that doesn't make him a crackpot.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Hi PS
Did Witt edit your original post or did he just quote certain bits in his reply.
If he only quoted certain bits in his reply, whats the problem?
However, if he censored your original post then you have a point, unless of course he was removing derogatory ad hominem statements.

Please clarify.

OK, he did not respond to my post. He edited (censored) it -- specifically by deleting most of it. After seeing my post (in full) after I posted it, it was altered some hours later. He is a charlatan! The critical parts deleted were my comments concerning the validity of what he calls "premises" that lead to his definition of infinity. I said that his premises are not self evident as he claims and that they are merely quasi-mystical statements. By the way, how "premises" lead to a "definition" is also an interesting sidestep in his logic. But, it doesn't matter; I am done with "null physics."

 

[Tubbythin]

What,to the best of current knowledge does a point particle consist of?
I recall TT saying that it consists of nothing.

Just to get this in to context (we've been here before), my response was to:

:
What does a quark consist of?
We know that a quark is a hypothetical particle but what makes a quark.
And then when you know that particle you can ask what makes that particle ad infinitum.

ie I was saying that to the best of our knowledge a quark has no substructure. I'm not really sure what you mean by "consists of" now though. In the context of the above quote it looked like you were talking about substructure in which case I stand by my original answer. If not, could you elaborate what you do mean?

 

[Skwinty]

The goal of elementary particle physics is to answer that question. Our current paradigm includes various possibilities. The simplest one (and that of our best model, which is incredibly accurate) is that there exist truly elementary point particles which cannot be divided further. So they consist only of themselves, if you want..

So then a quark consists of a quark, as far as the current paradigm is concerned. Some would say it's substructure consists of nothing

I think you may be a little confused about the concept of coordinate system. It's just an arbitrary set of labels for points. You can put the origin wherever you choose, regardless of where you are..

My point here was, when someone says and I quote

"This ignores the fact that a point has a location in space and so contains information. Information is not nothing."

and I say

"The location information that a point contains is relative to whose view point.
Ours, inside space or outside space?"

and then you say

"I don't understand the question"

and then I say

"what I am asking is, if you are for example on Mars or 3000 light years away, would your co-ordinate system's point of origin be the same?
ie x,y,z or x1,y1,z1"

and then you say

"I think you may be a little confused about the concept of coordinate system. It's just an arbitrary set of labels for points. You can put the origin wherever you choose, regardless of where you are."

I am not confused about co-ordinate systems, I know that the point of origin can be anywhere.
However,if the point as some would say contains information of location, my question is which co-ordinate system would it be, and if the point of origin moved would it update its information. If not, then how could the point hold its location information.

In physics we often include time in the specification of points. Such a thing can't move, since it exists only at an instant of time. A point particle, as time passes, sweeps out a line of such points..

This line of points. What do they consist of? Particles? Nothing? What?

I don't think I explained that very well. The point is, you have to be very careful how you define things. There is a valid sense in which if you built up your collection the way you describe the football collection would always be larger in volume. But you cannot simply compare infinities without knowing how you arrived at them. Once both are volumes are infinite, they can no longer be compared without the information about how you got there. This is called taking a "limit" in mathematics.

This is what my argument is about about the 1 cubic metre of golfballs and 100 cubic metres of footballs. When you get to infinity, which you never do, the golfball sets volume is always is smaller because the volumes were different when you started.

That should be obvious, since we could also arrive at infinite volume for both collections by using 100 cubic meters of golf balls for every one of footballs, and then your logic would say the golfballs are bigger... even though in both cases, both are infinite. See the problem?.

How could the golfballs be bigger than the footballs, they were smaller when you started the infinite sets. Its not about the size of an individual golf or football, its about the size of the container 1 cubic metre versus 100 cubic metres. The spatial volume of the initiating sets.

I think you are messing with my brain for your entertainment

Philosophy is the set of things too vague to be science. This, on the other hand, is mathematics.

So far we have discussed this in philosophical terms and not in mathematical terms.

As far as Witt and Stenger --

Stenger says "Our universe may be no more than re-arranged, re-structured nothingness"

Witt says "Everything is constructed of nothing"

Whats different?

Witt also says the following --

1. Matter and antimatter are always created in equal, yet opposite amounts, whose electrical sum is zero.

2. Positive and negative electrical fields sum to a neutral universe with zero net electrical charge.

3. Energy is conserved in all interactions: the magnitude of of the universes energy has zero change.

4. Space is a collection of points, little bits of nothingness itself, embodiments of the geometric zero.

5. Charge must be conserved in particle interactions, the sum of charge differences is zero.

6. Momentum is conserved, so the universe's net momentum remains constant at zero.

What are your comments on these points as they sound quite reasonable to me.