"Entropy" (1854 - 2021)

[KC Strom]

Many likely hold this view. I favor a more teleological one, which also isn't objective-based science.

Helio,

In post #22 you make the above statement. Are you willing to elaborate on your teleological view?

 

[Helio]

Helio,

In post #22 you make the above statement. Are you willing to elaborate on your teleological view?

Teleology refers to the common practice, prior to the 19th and especially the 20th century, to apply scientific findings with the idea there was an underlying purpose to them. This is not too dissimilar from the anthropic principle.

This is easy to understand in the context of the early evolutionists' viewpoints just prior to and during the days of Darwin. New varieties and species came along because they served a greater purpose or need to adapt.

An example of where it doesn't work is when Ptolemy had to choose whether or not Venus orbited between the Sun and Earth when others felt Venus orbited beyond the Sun. Ptolemy argued with the question of "why would God waste that space?".

This same argument likely played a roll in the push-back against Coprenicus because there was no sensible reason why stellar parallax wasn't observable, which the lack of parallax falsifies the theory. Cop argued further ))that the stars were much farther than imagined. But, again, "Why would God do that?". So here teleology fails. [Since stars, as Tycho argued, appear to have a size, and they do visually, then they couldn't be that far away, thus this also served strongly in the argument against Cop.]

If we assume that, somehow, there is this anthro-whatever goal that you and I be here, then producing all that we have by creating incredible energy, and laws and parameters necessary to produce the outcome from expansion would certainly count as an explanation.

Hence, assuming an intelligence (e.g. God) as one explanation, though not science, is, at least, equally as valid as another's subjective opinion. Neither opinions about what brought it out of t=0, whether by purpose or not, counts as real science. This is also true for multiverse explanations.

The discovery of all the fine-tuning in the universe, IMO, gives a far better explanation, though still subjective, for a Creator pseudoscience theory (not a scientific theory as these require the ability to falsify them).

 

[David-J-Franks]

I'll share my thoughts on some of your important points, since you seem interested in comments...

Yes, because people quickly push BBT, as a great science theory, to places it can't go.

I disagree that it's stupid since gravity doesn't get weaker near a singularity. But I do agree that it may well be unscientific since I don't know of equations that can accurately handle, even remotely, singularities, but there sure is a lot of stuff out there as if some folks, like Hawking, have done so.

This is why I prefer to present BBT as it was discovered.... today then rewind the clock and go as far as science will take you.

I haven't seen much of that. Science normally says that whatever, if anything, that was around before the Big Bang is outside our ability to see it or even understand it, at least until some objective evidence comes our way.

Right. Physics can get close to the first Planck second but beyond that is either metaphysics or pseudoscience, or just hand-waving, IMO.

These should be ignored or corrected when you see them.

Science doesn't know its origin.


The original paper from Lemaitre showed an early accelerated rate followed by a more linear rate. He understood well that he didn't have enough evidence to produce reliable estimates of expansion rates. This was 1927.

If and when we get a handle on DE, there may come much better estimates of an expansion rate and it may be fairly constant if our curvature is nearly "flat", for now, which it seems to be.

Why is this a problem? Rewind the clock and look at the CMBR, etc. and it can be determined with some degree of accuracy, within a 100M years or so is where we are now.

All we have to work with is the physics that lets us see that the great early phase of energy-only can expand and produce matter, and DM, apparently. It's logical that it produced spacetime as well.

Agreed, but if you find another, you'll enjoy your reward in Sweden.

Many likely hold this view. I favor a more teleological one, which also isn't objective-based science.

The more the universe expands the cooler it gets. It's down to about 2.7K now and getting cooler. This is also an area where science writers do little to "eschew obfuscation".

Yes, this would be objective evidence. This was proposed many years ago as a way to support M-theory (i.e. branes colliding with us). No evidence for such has been seen... so far.

If any two laser beams can travel parallel and appear to curve due to spacetime, per GR, until they return to us from behind. Then where will you go to find a center.? The idea that the surface of a sphere has a center is the 2D example of this.

Indeed, Einstein soon realized that he had to add something to prevent the universe from collapsing, so he added his cosmological constant. He later dismissed it when he finally accepted the GR work of Lemaitre, as well as others that encouraged him like de Sitter and Eddington. The original problem for all but Lemaitre and the math of Friedman was they were stuck in their dogmatic Static model view for the universe.

My reason for thinking this is nonsense is as follows;

1. The big bang started from a hot dense patch, NOT a sngularity and so started with a finite size.

These should be ignored or corrected when you see them.

Science doesn't know its origin.

2. It's undergone finites rates of expansion

The original paper from Lemaitre showed an early accelerated rate followed by a more linear rate. He understood well that he didn't have enough evidence to produce reliable estimates of expansion rates. This was 1927.

If and when we get a handle on DE, there may come much better estimates of an expansion rate and it may be fairly constant if our curvature is nearly "flat", for now, which it seems to be.

3. It has a finite age.

Why is this a problem? Rewind the clock and look at the CMBR, etc. and it can be determined with some degree of accuracy, within a 100M years or so is where we are now.

I was using these 3 facts about our universe (the whole contents of our Big Bang) to prove that it has a finite size now and so is an 'object'. The values of the parameters are irrelevent for this purpose. That they are finite is all that matters. So;

For 1. its origin is irrelevant as long as it had a finite size to begin with. I don't understand why you say these should be ignored, it's common nowadays to speak of it coming from a hot dense patch and not a singularity.

For 2. Again, the rates of expansion don't matter, only that they are finite matters.

For 3. A slight misunderstanding there, I'm not disagreeing with the age of our universe, I'm using the age in combination with points 1and 2 to finally prove the whole contents of our big bang are finite.

If the contents of our big bang are indeed a finite object then it follows that it has a centre and an edge.

A simpler way of putting it would just be to say; if whatever started our universe was a finite object, such as a hot dense patch or as Catastrophe now calls it a blob, Then these have a centre and an edge. As the universe expanded these features stay with it, simple? Furthermore, if it's an object then it exists in a space and so is not the creation of all of space as the theory suggests.

 

[Catastrophe]

Universe (universe, universes, multiverse, multiverses, yuch!) My emphasis throughout.
Googling gives the definition:
"all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago."

People also ask
How many universes are there?
The only meaningful answer to the question of how many universes there are is one, only one universe. And a few philosophers and mystics might argue that even our own universe is an illusion.

Multiverse
The multiverse is a hypothetical group of multiple universes.[a] Together, these universes comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, information, and the physical laws and constants that describe them. The different universes within the multiverse are called "parallel universes", "other universes", "alternate universes", or "many worlds".

My comments:
By definition, there is only one Universe comprising all that exists.
Multiverse is nothing but hypothesis. To say that the sum total of multiverses comprise the Universe, is to say that a multiverse is part of the Universe. To call multiverse "parallel", "alternate", is just building hypothesis on hypothesis. This seems to me to be language playing with itself.
There seems to be logical inconsistency here, in that having stated that there is only one Universe, it then uses a plural universes.

Oxford Dictionary of Science

Universe: all the matter, energy, and space that exists.
Multiverse: no entry.

Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy

Universe: Everything that exists, including space time and matter. The study of the Universe is known as cosmology.
Cosmologists distinguish between the Universe, with a capital 'U', meaning the cosmos and all its contents, and universe, with a small 'u', which is usually a mathematical model derived from some physical theory.
The real Universe consists mostly of apparently empty space, with matter concentrated into galaxies consisting of stars and gas. The Universe is expanding, so the space between galaxies is gradually stretching, causing a cosmological redshift in the light from distant objects. There is now strong evidence that space is filled with unseen dark matter that may have many times the total mass of the visible galaxies; and even more mass may be accounted for by a still mysterious dark energy. The most favoured concept of the origin of the Universe is the Big Bang theory, according which the Universe came into being in a hot, dense fireball
13.7 billion years ago.
Multiverse: A collection of universes which some speculative theories suggest could exist. If true, our own Universe would be only one member of the larger multiverse. If these different universes had values of the fundamental constants that are different from those in our own Universe, this might explain why our Universe appears so well suited for the existence of life.

Note: "universe, with a small 'u', which is usually a mathematical model derived from some physical theory" is immediately followed by: The real Universe consists . . . ".
The point is that the (small u) universe is not considered real, but simply a mathematical model.
I can think of one, and only one, exception. It is accepted to refer to all that we can observe as "the observable universe" - recognizing the fact that some parts of the Universe will never be available for observation. This is a consequence of the speed of light.

My point in stating this (again) is that considerable confusion is always caused by use of universe(s) with a small 'u'. Similarly by use of the word multiverse. I would most politely urge you not to use these words on a science forum, as they may only suggest a lack of understanding and confusion of meaning. I shall not be wasting my time participating in any discussions where they are in evidence.

Cat

 

[David-J-Franks]

Sure. Singularities are a logical assumption for the result of almost infinite gravitational attraction. What is there to avoid it all collapsing into a point? The problem is that we don't have, IMO, hard science that knows how to address them. We can more easily describe space around them and their effects. Indeed, this is how we discovered them. They can only be seen indirectly.

There's nothing logical about singularities, What's logical is there comes a point beyond which matter-energy cannot be compressed any further and equilibrium will be reached.

Perhaps the usual way of expressing a singularity by saying it has infinite density is not stupid enough for some. (not directed at you Helio, it's a general comment). Let me present it in a different way. Density = Mass / Volume , so, to get an infinite density you need to set the volume to zero. So according to this, a singularity has no volume, is that stupid enough? Can anything exist with no volume?

 

[Catastrophe]

Ahem! "such as a hot dense patch or as Catastrophe now calls it a blob"

I only repeated the word blob in a specific context. I shall continue to refer to the transition between phases of the Universe (hereinunder referred to as 'uniphase' with a small 'u' - since there are many of them making up the Universe. That is, in the model to which I subscribe.


Cat

 

[David-J-Franks]

Universe (universe, universes, multiverse, multiverses, yuch!) My emphasis throughout.
Googling gives the definition:
"all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago."

People also ask
How many universes are there?
The only meaningful answer to the question of how many universes there are is one, only one universe. And a few philosophers and mystics might argue that even our own universe is an illusion.

Multiverse
The multiverse is a hypothetical group of multiple universes.[a] Together, these universes comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, information, and the physical laws and constants that describe them. The different universes within the multiverse are called "parallel universes", "other universes", "alternate universes", or "many worlds".

My comments:
By definition, there is only one Universe comprising all that exists.
Multiverse is nothing but hypothesis. To say that the sum total of multiverses comprise the Universe, is to say that a multiverse is part of the Universe. To call multiverse "parallel", "alternate", is just building hypothesis on hypothesis. This seems to me to be language playing with itself.
There seems to be logical inconsistency here, in that having stated that there is only one Universe, it then uses a plural universes.

Oxford Dictionary of Science

Universe: all the matter, energy, and space that exists.
Multiverse: no entry.

Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy

Universe: Everything that exists, including space time and matter. The study of the Universe is known as cosmology.
Cosmologists distinguish between the Universe, with a capital 'U', meaning the cosmos and all its contents, and universe, with a small 'u', which is usually a mathematical model derived from some physical theory.
The real Universe consists mostly of apparently empty space, with matter concentrated into galaxies consisting of stars and gas. The Universe is expanding, so the space between galaxies is gradually stretching, causing a cosmological redshift in the light from distant objects. There is now strong evidence that space is filled with unseen dark matter that may have many times the total mass of the visible galaxies; and even more mass may be accounted for by a still mysterious dark energy. The most favoured concept of the origin of the Universe is the Big Bang theory, according which the Universe came into being in a hot, dense fireball
13.7 billion years ago.
Multiverse: A collection of universes which some speculative theories suggest could exist. If true, our own Universe would be only one member of the larger multiverse. If these different universes had values of the fundamental constants that are different from those in our own Universe, this might explain why our Universe appears so well suited for the existence of life.

Note: "universe, with a small 'u', which is usually a mathematical model derived from some physical theory" is immediately followed by: The real Universe consists . . . ".
The point is that the (small u) universe is not considered real, but simply a mathematical model.
I can think of one, and only one, exception. It is accepted to refer to all that we can observe as "the observable universe" - recognizing the fact that some parts of the Universe will never be available for observation. This is a consequence of the speed of light.

My point in stating this (again) is that considerable confusion is always caused by use of universe(s) with a small 'u'. Similarly by use of the word multiverse. I would most politely urge you not to use these words on a science forum, as they may only suggest a lack of understanding and confusion of meaning. I shall not be wasting my time participating in any discussions where they are in evidence.

Cat

A fascinating post Catastrophe, but once again it's bedtime so I'll respond tomorrow.

Just 2 quick points

The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter

and

I am now splitting my sides at this new word

Cosmologists distinguish between the Universe, with a capital 'U', meaning the cosmos and all its contents,

What is the 'cosmos' Catastrophe?

 

[Catastrophe]

David, here are the definitions from the same dictionaries:

Oxford Dictionary of Science
No entry, but there is one for Cosmology:
The study of the nature, origin, and evolution of the Universe. Various theories concerning the origin and evolution of the Universe exist.

Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy
Cosmos. Another name for the Universe.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that everything in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it. 'I refute it thus.'" (Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson, quoted from Wikipedia.)

 

[Catastrophe]

What Is (And Isn't) Scientific About The Multiverse

Our best physical theories predict that a multiverse exists. But if we can't test it, is it really scientific?

www.forbes.com

Don't think you know where this is going, until you get to the end.

"In this physical Universe, it's important to observe all that we can, and to measure every bit of knowledge we can glean. Only from the full suite of data available can we hope to ever draw valid, scientific conclusions about the nature of our Universe. Some of those conclusions will have implications that we may not be able to measure: the existence of the multiverse arises from that. But when people then contend that they can draw conclusions about fundamental constants, the laws of physics, or the values of string vacua, they're no longer doing science; they're speculating. Wishful thinking is no substitute for data, experiments, or observables. Until we have those, be aware that the multiverse is a consequence of the best science we have available today, but it doesn't make any scientific predictions we can put to the test."

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

What Is (And Isn't) Scientific About The Multiverse

Our best physical theories predict that a multiverse exists. But if we can't test it, is it really scientific?

www.forbes.com

Don't think you know where this is going, until you get to the end.

"In this physical Universe, it's important to observe all that we can, and to measure every bit of knowledge we can glean. Only from the full suite of data available can we hope to ever draw valid, scientific conclusions about the nature of our Universe. Some of those conclusions will have implications that we may not be able to measure: the existence of the multiverse arises from that. But when people then contend that they can draw conclusions about fundamental constants, the laws of physics, or the values of string vacua, they're no longer doing science; they're speculating. Wishful thinking is no substitute for data, experiments, or observables. Until we have those, be aware that the multiverse is a consequence of the best science we have available today, but it doesn't make any scientific predictions we can put to the test."

Cat

If you are talking to me, and I will assume you were whether directly or indirectly, I certainly do know the limits of a closed systemic box versus an open systemic frontier. I certainly know the difference between armchair observers in the box and observation from the box, so to speak, and those observers who will go out to travel the paralleling frontier universes at large to increasingly reach to observe the natures and physics of an outland Multiverse Universe whether just mindfully or actually first hand: Who will observe, and even be a part of, whether precursory or first hand, the losing behind and gaining ahead of relativities (the breakdown and build up of relativities): Who won't be satisfied to leave the background Universe, the background Universe.

You seem satisfied to quote from a more than willfully armchair source (thus to me a stillborn mind) such as Dr. Samuel Johnson who refuted nothing whatsoever by kicking the stone. That isn't perceptiveness, art, imagination, or science. It is simply stone mediocrity espousing, supporting, stone mediocrity. The warnings, and they are effectively warnings, concerning the many times in history of "as yet unproven" (and even possibly unprovable) imaginings and perceptions of great genius (such as Isaac Newton then, and Stephen Hawking today, among so many others), always have been cautions and warnings from flightless birds of mediocrity in the box against the soaring of eagles of original genius.

 

[Atlan0001]

Addendum to post #36. The biggest damned problem of all is the absolutely inescapable need for the "flightless birds of mediocrity in the box" for balance weight.... (physics) (science).

 

[Atlan0001]

To dig a little deeper into an entropy:

To paraphrase and take deeper from Chapter III, Biology and History, The Lessons of History, by Will and Ariel Durant:

An opening frontier (an opening frontier universe) (an opening system) in which all potential abilities are allowed to develop and function will have survival advantage.... In an inwardly looking, a shrinking, world (a closed world) (a closing system), competition becomes evermore severe as the destruction of distance (every kind of distance) intensifies the complexity, complication, and confrontation, of virtually all states dynamic, and static. Entropy!

Some times, in certain cases, such entropies aren't all that bad, if we succeed from their growing negativity to a progressive positive aborning out. There is nothing like an expansionist new frontier to turn an 'Old World' from entropically worsening conditions of negativity into a dynamically expansionist new frontier of a sort! Breakout dynamically renewed life in Western Europe after 1492. Breakout can dynamically renew life on Earth after making opening and expansion permanent. Energy exchange!

 

[Helio]

For 1. its origin is irrelevant as long as it had a finite size to begin with. I don't understand why you say these should be ignored, it's common nowadays to speak of it coming from a hot dense patch and not a singularity.

Agreed, the actual t=0 (origin) is irrelevant to BBT. Where scientists and journalists should avoid is suggesting we can take BBT down to a singularity and claim it's physics, but AFAIK, BBT fails to address in both physics and math when we get very close to t=0. [Perhaps, however, Hawking and others can address the math after all, but I doubt the physics works.]

We can't say there wasn't a singularity but it is outside the purview of science. So to address singularities becomes metaphysics. Such discussions are important because they may help us better understand those uber extreme circumstances.... someday.

Too often it is assumed that singularities are a part of the theory, but the theory was, at least originally, based on looking at today's expansion and rewinding to clock. But Lemaitre took it down to more of a finite size he called the "Primeval Atom".

As for sizes, IIRC, physics, by incorporating inflation theory, has the post inflation size to that of about a grapefruit, but we must not think in Euclidian math.

For 3. A slight misunderstanding there, I'm not disagreeing with the age of our universe, I'm using the age in combination with points 1and 2 to finally prove the whole contents of our big bang are finite.

If the contents of our big bang are indeed a finite object then it follows that it has a centre and an edge.

If it were simple Euclidian 3D space, then this would likely be true, perhaps.

We can determine the center of a ball sitting in space by measuring things on it. But space isn't Euclidian. It bends due to gravity so using Minkowski math in GR will demonstrate no center is findable. It's why they use the example of having no center on the surface of a ballon.

In GR, any place in the universe can be treated as a center, even Earth. There was a seminar of convention a decade or so ago to present by GR experts how the Earth is the center. GR allows this but it says nothing as to an absolute center since any location in the Universe (observable) can be a center.

The expansion is everywhere. Shrinking the Universe down to something smaller won't change this.

Also, keep in mind, that the expansion is such that we will never be able to observe other, more distant regions, due to expansion. And then add that light appears to bend so one shouldn't imagine looking outward and finding a physical edge to the universe.

 

[Atlan0001]

Singularities are conduits, not strictly an end of whatever goes to it only. Here it is end, there it is white hole-like quantum fluctuation and production. A singularity is dimensionally a single-sided input here and a single-sided output there. Two sides of one and the same coin (the multi-dimensional Multiverse's decentralization of a centralized Big Crunch / Big Vacuum). You see, the Universe at large actually loses nothing and gains nothing. It is both deformative and simultaneously formative at all times. Here it might seem to contract (to lose). There it might seem to expand (to gain). Regarding the Universe at large it does both at once, at all times. A balanced nature at all times (few rules).

Keep in mind, there is no such thing as "expansion" without "contraction". There cannot be. What they are, they are simultaneous opposites; they mirror each other; they parallel each other; they balance each other. Regarding the Universe at large -- that loses nothing and gains nothing -- they do not one-dimensionally alternate; they do not pulse; they do not cycle. The Multiverse Universe is not a herky-jerk anarchy of a one-dimensional tyranny incarnate.

It's really strange to me, who is no more than a run of the mill mathematician, though I have been classified by testing a "visual mathematician", that those who claim to know their mathematics and physics well do not seem to see, do not seem to realize, what the final two-in-one dimensionality of all simultaneous opposites would be. One of the two is 'mirror'. The other is '0'.

 

[Atlan0001]

A triple feature exists, I suppose:

Big Bang / Big Crunch / Big Vacuum
(Energy / Mass / C^2)
(E = MC^2)
(M = E/C^2)
(Energy / Mass / C^2)
Big Bang / Big Crunch / Big Vacuum)

And I'm not forgetting Big Mirror mirroring to infinity.

 

[David-J-Franks]

Agreed, the actual t=0 (origin) is irrelevant to BBT. Where scientists and journalists should avoid is suggesting we can take BBT down to a singularity and claim it's physics, but AFAIK, BBT fails to address in both physics and math when we get very close to t=0. [Perhaps, however, Hawking and others can address the math after all, but I doubt the physics works.]

We can't say there wasn't a singularity but it is outside the purview of science. So to address singularities becomes metaphysics. Such discussions are important because they may help us better understand those uber extreme circumstances.... someday.

Too often it is assumed that singularities are a part of the theory, but the theory was, at least originally, based on looking at today's expansion and rewinding to clock. But Lemaitre took it down to more of a finite size he called the "Primeval Atom".

As for sizes, IIRC, physics, by incorporating inflation theory, has the post inflation size to that of about a grapefruit, but we must not think in Euclidian math.


If it were simple Euclidian 3D space, then this would likely be true, perhaps.

We can determine the center of a ball sitting in space by measuring things on it. But space isn't Euclidian. It bends due to gravity so using Minkowski math in GR will demonstrate no center is findable. It's why they use the example of having no center on the surface of a ballon.

In GR, any place in the universe can be treated as a center, even Earth. There was a seminar of convention a decade or so ago to present by GR experts how the Earth is the center. GR allows this but it says nothing as to an absolute center since any location in the Universe (observable) can be a center.

The expansion is everywhere. Shrinking the Universe down to something smaller won't change this.

Also, keep in mind, that the expansion is such that we will never be able to observe other, more distant regions, due to expansion. And then add that light appears to bend so one shouldn't imagine looking outward and finding a physical edge to the universe.

David-J-Franks said:
For 1. its origin is irrelevant as long as it had a finite size to begin with. I don't understand why you say these should be ignored, it's common nowadays to speak of it coming from a hot dense patch and not a singularity.

Agreed, the actual t=0 (origin) is irrelevant to BBT. Where scientists and journalists should avoid is suggesting we can take BBT down to a singularity and claim it's physics, but AFAIK, BBT fails to address in both physics and math when we get very close to t=0. [Perhaps, however, Hawking and others can address the math after all, but I doubt the physics works.]

Agreed, suggesting singularities exist is one of the things I mentioned in post 11 when I said the Big Bang Theory had done damage to science. Taking it down to a finite size is ok though. So, 1. finite size to begin with, ok?

We can't say there wasn't a singularity but it is outside the purview of science. So to address singularities becomes metaphysics.

If the definition of a singularity is a point with infinite density, then as I pointed out earlier it must have zero volume, and anything with zero volume does not exist, so I think it is logical to say there wasn't a singularity. Furthermore, points don't exist either. It might be outside the purview of science but it's within the purview of rational thinking and logical reasoning. Even furthermore, density is a property that requires a value, either relative to something else eg small, medium or large or an exact number. Infinite is not a value or number, it's only a concept (according to Catastrophe). Further, furthermore, even Einstein said there are only 2 things that are infinite - the Universe and human stupidity.

But Lemaitre took it down to more of a finite size he called the "Primeval Atom".

He had more sense then.

For 3. A slight misunderstanding there, I'm not disagreeing with the age of our universe, I'm using the age in combination with points 1and 2 to finally prove the whole contents of our big bang are finite.

If the contents of our big bang are indeed a finite object then it follows that it has a centre and an edge.

If it were simple Euclidian 3D space, then this would likely be true, perhaps.

We can determine the center of a ball sitting in space by measuring things on it. But space isn't Euclidian. It bends due to gravity so using Minkowski math in GR will demonstrate no center is findable. It's why they use the example of having no center on the surface of a ballon.

Most of gravity is near or inside galaxies, galaxies are far apart, space is mostly empty with only little gravity in it. So for the sake of my arguments, all of space is very very close to Euclidean geometry and a little warping or distortion here and there makes no difference.

If you use the analogy of a ball sitting in space, great, exactly my point, the whole contents of the big bang is an object sitting in space, but we live in the ball, not on it! We don't live on the surface of a balloon or on any surface, we are 3D. That's where science goes wrong IMO. The best analogy for expanding space is the rasin cake one, but even here the cake has a centre and edge.

In GR, any place in the universe can be treated as a center, even Earth. There was a seminar of convention a decade or so ago to present by GR experts how the Earth is the center. GR allows this but it says nothing as to an absolute center since any location in the Universe (observable) can be a center.

This is another area where science becomes damaging and misleading. This time it's because scientists don't make it clear enough that they are talking about only the observable universe, the observable contents of the Big Bang. Here, it looks to me as you have partly done the same since you start off by using the word universe, and then later you use the words observable universe.

It's important in this context. Your sentence - "In GR, any place in the universe can be treated as a centre, even Earth." - is incorrect IMO, it only has meaning if you mean observable universe IMO. When you say "any place in the universe" that seems to imply the whole contents of the Big Bang as opposed to the observable contents, which you seem to be using for your argument, so a conflict here. Discussing a centre for the 'universe' and one for the 'observable universe' are 2 different things entirely. So, yes of course the observable universe has no centre but that has no bearing on whether the universe (whole contents of Big Bang) has a centre or not.

I have tried to make it clear and I'm sure that everyone has understood that I have all the time been referring to the whole contents of the big bang (universe) for which I've been arguing there's a centre and edge/boundary.

The expansion is everywhere. Shrinking the Universe down to something smaller won't change this.

Surely you will get back down to Lemaitre's finite size Primeval Atom won't you?

Also, keep in mind, that the expansion is such that we will never be able to observe other, more distant regions, due to expansion.

I completly agree, all my thinking will always only be logic and reasoning.

And then add that light appears to bend so one shouldn't imagine looking outward and finding a physical edge to the universe.

Agreed, we can't, but I see no reason why someone living near the edge would not see galaxies in one direction and not much in the opposite.

 

[David-J-Franks]

I forgot to sumarise my thinking in the above post, so here, for what it's worth;

Big Bang starts with finite size + finite expansion rates + finite age = finite size object now.

Objects have an inside and outside, a centre and edge.

 

[Helio]

If the definition of a singularity is a point with infinite density, then as I pointed out earlier it must have zero volume, and anything with zero volume does not exist, so I think it is logical to say there wasn't a singularity.

Furthermore, points don't exist either.

But points do exist, of course, they're just 1D. A line is comprised of points. No points, gives us no lines. Combining lines will give us area and these can give us volume (3D).

Perhaps an analogy will help...

If a heat strip produces 100w per inch and each inch is comprised of points, then what is the wattage per point? It can't be zero since zero times the total number of points, also all at zero, could never give us the 100w, right?

So if there is some tiny wattage per point then multiplying by the number of points will give us the 100w.

But, as you say, if a point has no size then whatever the wattage is at that point gives us infinite energy density.

This looks like paradox.

There is an important difference between math an physics. In physics we -- I'm not a physicist, btw -- will divide the 100w by whatever size we need to get realistic results. So, mathematical points of no length aren't helpful in physics.

Similarly, BBT doesn't go to a singularity due to the complications that exceed our ability to understand it. We have huge evidence the universe is expanding, so reducing its size by rewinding the clock is how we get to as far as we can go, which, AFAIK, is not quite to a singularity.

Most of gravity is near or inside galaxies, galaxies are far apart, space is mostly empty with only little gravity in it. So for the sake of my arguments, all of space is very very close to Euclidean geometry and a little warping or distortion here and there makes no difference.

Right, but that depends on what issue is at hand. The curvature of space (overall) is an important value. If light goes out and, in principle, will come back and hit us in the back of the head, how would we discover any mythical edge to the universe?

The bending of light due to gravity was determined by experiment by Eddington. It was this result that launched the media into introducing the world to Einstein.

If you use the analogy of a ball sitting in space, great, exactly my point, the whole contents of the big bang is an object sitting in space,...

A contractor had a calling card stating he could move all the dirt on the planet if he just had a place to put it.

We have no way of saying that the whole contents of the BB (i.e. Universe) is within some region called space. We define space as that which is in the Universe. Perhaps there is some sort of space (aether?) outside the Universe, but that is pure supposition, at least for now.

.. but we live in the ball, not on it! We don't live on the surface of a balloon or on any surface, we are 3D. That's where science goes wrong IMO. The best analogy for expanding space is the rasin cake one, but even here the cake has a centre and edge.

Right, analogies are always limited because they aren't the same thing, just something to help the mind look in a direction not previously taken or understood.

I like the raisin bread best, especially when I'm hungry. Food metaphors may prove to be either the best or maybe the most common. That would be a great trivia answer.

But the raisin bread/cake is used to help others understand why all raisins move away from one another. There is no center raisin unless one cheats by calculating the center by knowing the outer dimensions. GR argues that there is no outer edge, hence there is only relative motions with no absolute center, or at least none that can be determined.

Here, it looks to me as you have partly done the same since you start off by using the word universe, and then later you use the words observable universe.

To me, universe, whole universe, and Universe are synonymous. That's, perhaps, is me being shortsighted, but unless specific thoughts arise to suggest something beyond the observable universe, I just as soon not spend time clarifying.

It's important in this context. Your sentence - "In GR, any place in the universe can be treated as a centre, even Earth." - is incorrect IMO, it only has meaning if you mean observable universe IMO. When you say "any place in the universe" that seems to imply the whole contents of the Big Bang as opposed to the observable contents, which you seem to be using for your argument, so a conflict here.

BBT only addresses the observable universe (Universe) because it is a strong scientific theory that meets the requirements of having its predictions testable. No theory that goes beyond what can be observed, even in principle, is a valid scientific theory. Extrapolating can be fun and perhaps helpful, but we need to understand what is fiction and what isn't. This is just another reason why singularities, though fun and helpful, shouldn't be treated as fact. If predictions from their unique existence can be tested, then they could be scientific hypotheses. If so, that would make for an interesting article. Have I missed them, and I certainly may have?

Discussing a centre for the 'universe' and one for the 'observable universe' are 2 different things entirely. So, yes of course the observable universe has no centre but that has no bearing on whether the universe (whole contents of Big Bang) has a centre or not.

The observable universe is addressed in the BBT. Regions beyond, if that's what you mean, are not part of BBT.

It may help to understand that "observable" doesn't mean what we can see with a telescope, it means the whole universe as far as is possible to conduct observations now and with better equipment. Regions, in supposition, that are expanding far faster than light can't, in principle, be observed. But, since it is reasonable to assume that those regions exist -- note that those closer regions would have been observable in the distant past if we were around to look and had adequate equipment -- they could be treated in a special way, but why bother?

I have tried to make it clear and I'm sure that everyone has understood that I have all the time been referring to the whole contents of the big bang (universe) for which I've been arguing there's a centre and edge/boundary.

Please explain the difference between your universes.

Surely you will get back down to Lemaitre's finite size Primeval Atom won't you?

When did I leave it? It is those that favor a singularity start that go beyond it. It should be noted, however, that he wasn't able to take it down to a smaller size as we can today.

But when I say size, I only mean what we have today in terms of billions of lightyear radius (to the "observable edge") that gets shrunk to almost nothing. So, if you agree we can't determine a center now, then shrinking it to something smaller won't help since we are never on the outside looking down upon it.

A simpler way of putting it would just be to say; if whatever started our universe was a finite object, such as a hot dense patch or as Catastrophe now calls it a blob, Then these have a centre and an edge.

Yes, if we are treating it as if we are looking down upon it. If we, though highly shrunk in size, must try to make the calculation by measuring the "edges" from the inside, then we will fail. Even though the size was small, the expansion rate was so fast that we would, even then, be trying to observe regions that were traveling far faster than the speed of light, so it would've been impossible to get a center or an overall size per unit time. This extra fast expansion rate is a big issue since it has a big effect on trying to figure out both the isotropy and anisotropy observed.

As the universe expanded these features stay with it, simple? Furthermore, if it's an object then it exists in a space and so is not the creation of all of space as the theory suggests.

What space do you think it is in? What evidence is there for space outside of space? But, again, GR changes how we see the spacetime of the universe; it's not some big ball shaped object but something better defined by GR, not Euclid.

 

[David-J-Franks]

But points do exist, of course, they're just 1D. A line is comprised of points. No points, gives us no lines. Combining lines will give us area and these can give us volume (3D).

Perhaps an analogy will help...

If a heat strip produces 100w per inch and each inch is comprised of points, then what is the wattage per point? It can't be zero since zero times the total number of points, also all at zero, could never give us the 100w, right?

So if there is some tiny wattage per point then multiplying by the number of points will give us the 100w.

But, as you say, if a point has no size then whatever the wattage is at that point gives us infinite energy density.

This looks like paradox.

There is an important difference between math an physics. In physics we -- I'm not a physicist, btw -- will divide the 100w by whatever size we need to get realistic results. So, mathematical points of no length aren't helpful in physics.

Similarly, BBT doesn't go to a singularity due to the complications that exceed our ability to understand it. We have huge evidence the universe is expanding, so reducing its size by rewinding the clock is how we get to as far as we can go, which, AFAIK, is not quite to a singularity.

Right, but that depends on what issue is at hand. The curvature of space (overall) is an important value. If light goes out and, in principle, will come back and hit us in the back of the head, how would we discover any mythical edge to the universe?

The bending of light due to gravity was determined by experiment by Eddington. It was this result that launched the media into introducing the world to Einstein.

A contractor had a calling card stating he could move all the dirt on the planet if he just had a place to put it.

We have no way of saying that the whole contents of the BB (i.e. Universe) is within some region called space. We define space as that which is in the Universe. Perhaps there is some sort of space (aether?) outside the Universe, but that is pure supposition, at least for now.

Right, analogies are always limited because they aren't the same thing, just something to help the mind look in a direction not previously taken or understood.

I like the raisin bread best, especially when I'm hungry. Food metaphors may prove to be either the best or maybe the most common. That would be a great trivia answer.

But the raisin bread/cake is used to help others understand why all raisins move away from one another. There is no center raisin unless one cheats by calculating the center by knowing the outer dimensions. GR argues that there is no outer edge, hence there is only relative motions with no absolute center, or at least none that can be determined.

To me, universe, whole universe, and Universe are synonymous. That's, perhaps, is me being shortsighted, but unless specific thoughts arise to suggest something beyond the observable universe, I just as soon not spend time clarifying.


BBT only addresses the observable universe (Universe) because it is a strong scientific theory that meets the requirements of having its predictions testable. No theory that goes beyond what can be observed, even in principle, is a valid scientific theory. Extrapolating can be fun and perhaps helpful, but we need to understand what is fiction and what isn't. This is just another reason why singularities, though fun and helpful, shouldn't be treated as fact. If predictions from their unique existence can be tested, then they could be scientific hypotheses. If so, that would make for an interesting article. Have I missed them, and I certainly may have?

The observable universe is addressed in the BBT. Regions beyond, if that's what you mean, are not part of BBT.

It may help to understand that "observable" doesn't mean what we can see with a telescope, it means the whole universe as far as is possible to conduct observations now and with better equipment. Regions, in supposition, that are expanding far faster than light can't, in principle, be observed. But, since it is reasonable to assume that those regions exist -- note that those closer regions would have been observable in the distant past if we were around to look and had adequate equipment -- they could be treated in a special way, but why bother?

Please explain the difference between your universes.

When did I leave it? It is those that favor a singularity start that go beyond it. It should be noted, however, that he wasn't able to take it down to a smaller size as we can today.

But when I say size, I only mean what we have today in terms of billions of lightyear radius (to the "observable edge") that gets shrunk to almost nothing. So, if you agree we can't determine a center now, then shrinking it to something smaller won't help since we are never on the outside looking down upon it.

Yes, if we are treating it as if we are looking down upon it. If we, though highly shrunk in size, must try to make the calculation by measuring the "edges" from the inside, then we will fail. Even though the size was small, the expansion rate was so fast that we would, even then, be trying to observe regions that were traveling far faster than the speed of light, so it would've been impossible to get a center or an overall size per unit time. This extra fast expansion rate is a big issue since it has a big effect on trying to figure out both the isotropy and anisotropy observed.

What space do you think it is in? What evidence is there for space outside of space? But, again, GR changes how we see the spacetime of the universe; it's not some big ball shaped object but something better defined by GR, not Euclid.

But points do exist, of course, they're just 1D. A line is comprised of points. No points, gives us no lines. Combining lines will give us area and these can give us volume (3D).

Points don't exist, they have zero volume, they have no physical reality to them, they are purely mathematical concepts.

A line is not comprised of points. It can have an infinite number of points along its length, but you can't make a line with an infinite number of points. Points occupy no space, so however close you put points on a line you will ALWAYS be able to put another in-between, there will always be gaps, you can't make it a continuous line. (This is called the continuum infinity which is infinitely bigger than countable infinity). So once again aline is only a concept and has no reality to it.

Joining lines defines an area, it doesn't create an area, an area has zero thickness, so nothing is created. A similar argument to above, an area contains an infinite number of lines but you can't make an area from an infinite number of lines.

Ditto for volume. Volume doesn't exist only what's in it or surrounding it does.

If a heat strip produces 100w per inch and each inch is comprised of points, then what is the wattage per point? It can't be zero since zero times the total number of points, also all at zero, could never give us the 100w, right?

Each strip is not comprised of points, it only contains an infinite number of points. The wattage of each point is 100w / by infinite points = zero watts per point.

So, mathematical points of no length aren't helpful in physics.

Points with a length would be even more useless, how long is a point?

I'll post this part now, it's too much for my brain to respond to all at once!

 

[Helio]

Points don't exist, they have zero volume, they have no physical reality to them, they are purely mathematical concepts.

If points don't exist, lines don't exist. If lines don't exist....

Definition of a line...
"A line is made of a set of points which is extended in opposite directions infinitely. It is determined by two points in a two-dimensional plane. The two points which lie on the same line are said to be collinear points."

You can't have a line without points. But it becomes a matter of how we want to use them in physics to address natural phenomena. They are tools, so your point about points isn't wrong, but needs some clarity.

A line is not comprised of points. It can have an infinite number of points along its length, but you can't make a line with an infinite number of points.

Yes and no. Yes, because we can imagine an infinite number, though physics doesn't work when we try to use a distance between any two points less than the Planck length.

So, once again, you're right and wrong. In math, we can play with the notion of an infinite no. of points in any line, or we can use 2 points to establish a line, or any number of points in between. The last part is what is useful, whereas infinity rarely is.

Ditto for volume. Volume doesn't exist only what's in it or surrounding it does.

What's the difference as far as physics?

Each strip is not comprised of points, it only contains an infinite number of points.

Or it contains as little as two points. Using the linear strip that is 1 inch at 100w/inch...if we want to add a point in the middle, we get 1/2 that (50 watts between points). We can keep going but in physics, there is no need to go to infinity. In physics, the limit will eventually be the Planck length. So it is finite, but not in math.

The wattage of each point is 100w / by infinite points = zero watts per point.

So zero watts per point x infinite # of points = 100 watts? Is this your position? Come back to physics.

Points with a length would be even more useless, how long is a point?

Yes, because length is another way to say line, which is at least two points. Ug.

 

[David-J-Franks]

But points do exist, of course, they're just 1D. A line is comprised of points. No points, gives us no lines. Combining lines will give us area and these can give us volume (3D).

Perhaps an analogy will help...

If a heat strip produces 100w per inch and each inch is comprised of points, then what is the wattage per point? It can't be zero since zero times the total number of points, also all at zero, could never give us the 100w, right?

So if there is some tiny wattage per point then multiplying by the number of points will give us the 100w.

But, as you say, if a point has no size then whatever the wattage is at that point gives us infinite energy density.

This looks like paradox.

There is an important difference between math an physics. In physics we -- I'm not a physicist, btw -- will divide the 100w by whatever size we need to get realistic results. So, mathematical points of no length aren't helpful in physics.

Similarly, BBT doesn't go to a singularity due to the complications that exceed our ability to understand it. We have huge evidence the universe is expanding, so reducing its size by rewinding the clock is how we get to as far as we can go, which, AFAIK, is not quite to a singularity.

Right, but that depends on what issue is at hand. The curvature of space (overall) is an important value. If light goes out and, in principle, will come back and hit us in the back of the head, how would we discover any mythical edge to the universe?

The bending of light due to gravity was determined by experiment by Eddington. It was this result that launched the media into introducing the world to Einstein.

A contractor had a calling card stating he could move all the dirt on the planet if he just had a place to put it.

We have no way of saying that the whole contents of the BB (i.e. Universe) is within some region called space. We define space as that which is in the Universe. Perhaps there is some sort of space (aether?) outside the Universe, but that is pure supposition, at least for now.

Right, analogies are always limited because they aren't the same thing, just something to help the mind look in a direction not previously taken or understood.

I like the raisin bread best, especially when I'm hungry. Food metaphors may prove to be either the best or maybe the most common. That would be a great trivia answer.

But the raisin bread/cake is used to help others understand why all raisins move away from one another. There is no center raisin unless one cheats by calculating the center by knowing the outer dimensions. GR argues that there is no outer edge, hence there is only relative motions with no absolute center, or at least none that can be determined.

To me, universe, whole universe, and Universe are synonymous. That's, perhaps, is me being shortsighted, but unless specific thoughts arise to suggest something beyond the observable universe, I just as soon not spend time clarifying.


BBT only addresses the observable universe (Universe) because it is a strong scientific theory that meets the requirements of having its predictions testable. No theory that goes beyond what can be observed, even in principle, is a valid scientific theory. Extrapolating can be fun and perhaps helpful, but we need to understand what is fiction and what isn't. This is just another reason why singularities, though fun and helpful, shouldn't be treated as fact. If predictions from their unique existence can be tested, then they could be scientific hypotheses. If so, that would make for an interesting article. Have I missed them, and I certainly may have?

The observable universe is addressed in the BBT. Regions beyond, if that's what you mean, are not part of BBT.

It may help to understand that "observable" doesn't mean what we can see with a telescope, it means the whole universe as far as is possible to conduct observations now and with better equipment. Regions, in supposition, that are expanding far faster than light can't, in principle, be observed. But, since it is reasonable to assume that those regions exist -- note that those closer regions would have been observable in the distant past if we were around to look and had adequate equipment -- they could be treated in a special way, but why bother?

Please explain the difference between your universes.

When did I leave it? It is those that favor a singularity start that go beyond it. It should be noted, however, that he wasn't able to take it down to a smaller size as we can today.

But when I say size, I only mean what we have today in terms of billions of lightyear radius (to the "observable edge") that gets shrunk to almost nothing. So, if you agree we can't determine a center now, then shrinking it to something smaller won't help since we are never on the outside looking down upon it.

Yes, if we are treating it as if we are looking down upon it. If we, though highly shrunk in size, must try to make the calculation by measuring the "edges" from the inside, then we will fail. Even though the size was small, the expansion rate was so fast that we would, even then, be trying to observe regions that were traveling far faster than the speed of light, so it would've been impossible to get a center or an overall size per unit time. This extra fast expansion rate is a big issue since it has a big effect on trying to figure out both the isotropy and anisotropy observed.

What space do you think it is in? What evidence is there for space outside of space? But, again, GR changes how we see the spacetime of the universe; it's not some big ball shaped object but something better defined by GR, not Euclid.

Similarly, BBT doesn't go to a singularity due to the complications that exceed our ability to understand it. We have huge evidence the universe is expanding, so reducing its size by rewinding the clock is how we get to as far as we can go, which, AFAIK, is not quite to a singularity.

You may be wrong here, forgive me for thinking that it does go to a singularity, because when I google Big Bang and without cherry-picking the first 3 well-known websites all say the universe started from an infinitely dense point called a singularity. Knowing this beforehand is what prompted me earlier to say the Big Bang was doing harm to science. I was surprised to read this, I thought singularities had been dismissed as absurd, but apparently not yet. So peoples brains are still being damaged

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

The Big Bang Theory is our best guess about how the universe began.

www.space.com

What is the Big Bang Theory?

How was our Universe created? How did it come to be the seemingly infinite place we know of today? And what will become of it, ages from now? These are the questions that have been puzzling philosophers and scholars since the beginning the time, and led to some pretty wild and interesting...

phys.org

Big Bang - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Right, but that depends on what issue is at hand. The curvature of space (overall) is an important value. If light goes out and, in principle, will come back and hit us in the back of the head, how would we discover any mythical edge to the universe?

To the best of my knowledge the most accurate measurements today indicate that space is flat. So, no, light beams won't come back and hit you. If you shine a light outwards yes it will get bent a little here and there but on average it will go in a straight line.

We have no way of saying that the whole contents of the BB (i.e. Universe) is within some region called space. We define space as that which is in the Universe. Perhaps there is some sort of space (aether?) outside the Universe, but that is pure supposition, at least for now.

The first thing to note here is you are using the word Universe with an uppercase U which seems to imply the dictionary definition of the Universe which means everything that exists. I don't think The Big Bang theory has any grounds to form a theory that says that everything that exists came from a singularity or hot dense patch, since everything that exists is not knowable. I would have thought it more appropriate to use the word universe with a lower case meaning just our universe but that's beside the point anyway.

We do have a way of saying the whole contents of the Big Bang is in a space. It comes from everyday observations that everything that exists, exists in a space. So if the initial contents of The Big Bang existed, they existed in a space. All of the descriptive wording of the initial entities at the beginning of The Big Bang such as a singularity or a hot dense patch are all descriptions of things that require a space for them to be in, otherwise, it would not be possible to use words to describe The Big Bang and therefore you couldn't even have a theory of The Big Bang if it can't be done with words. All descriptions are necessarily done from the viewpoint of an outside observer so that also means there has to be an outside space to these objects, otherwise, nothing makes any sense at all. It's the only way the human mind can think and form a theory in the first place.

All imagining about The Big Bang has to be done from the perspective of an outside observer, as would, I think even the founder of the theory, Lemaitre, when he described the beginning as a primaeval atom, an atom has to be viewed from the outside.

Can you think of any other descriptions for The Big Bang which doesn't start from observing/imagining it from the outside? do you have any other alternatives to the words singularity or hot dense patch?

It's not supposition to say there is space outside of the contents of The Big Bang, it is there by logic and reasoning.

BBT only addresses the observable universe

Something wrong here, every time I read about The Big Bang theory it says it is the beginning of the universe, not the beginning of the observable universe, so it is meant to cover all of the universe.

Please explain the difference between your universes.

Not much need to, for the most part, I have been using the words 'contents of the Big Bang' or observable contents of the Big Bang deliberately in order to avoid confusion, so all my ramblings should have been crystal clear on that matter. Just for interest, my definitions are Universe with uppercase U means the dictionary definition ie everything that exists, universe with lower case u means any kind of sub-universe such as pocket universes, bubble universes, other worlds, parallel universes or finite Big Bang universes.

I notice from dictionaries and article's some people call the contents of The Big Bang Universe with uppercase U and other articles call it the universe with lower case u. Best just to have 'Universe', 'contents of Big Bang' and 'observable contents of Big Bang' no confusion then I hope.

What space do you think it is in? What evidence is there for space outside of space? But, again, GR changes how we see the spacetime of the universe; it's not some big ball shaped object but something better defined by GR, not Euclid.

I'm not looking for evidence of space outside of space, that is a nonsense concept, there is only one space and it is infinite and the contents of our Big Bang are in that space. I'm not saying anything at all about what else may be in that space, that's nothing to do with my original argument.

 

[David-J-Franks]

So if there is some tiny wattage per point then multiplying by the number of points will give us the 100w.

It's a poor analogy, points don't make watts, atoms might do but then they're not points.

So, mathematical points of no length aren't helpful in physics.

So why did you construct your strip from points in the first place?

In physics, the limit will eventually be the Planck length. So it is finite, but not in math.

Better then, to make your heat strip from Planck lengths. There again these are not points so no point trying to make a point about points with Planck lengths.

The wattage of each point is 100w / by infinite points = zero watts per point.

So zero watts per point x infinite # of points = 100 watts? Is this your position? Come back to physics.

My original equation involving infinity can't be reversed with normal algebra, it is undefinable. 0 anything x infinite anything is undefined, so no, this is not my position. I could say come back to maths, but it's not my nature to tell people to come back to something. The apparent paradox of this result is from you trying to attribute watts to points so there are no paradoxes here.

 

[Helio]

I could say come back to maths, but it's not my nature to tell people to come back to something.

Ok, this implies you recognize math is different than physics.

 

[Atlan0001]

A map is not the territory it maps, but it is a map of the territory, whether accurate or not (whether real or relative)! Some observer's "observation" of the territory. There are those now who say the territory doesn't exist until it is observed (mapped) by some observer (some mapper).
-------------------------

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." -- Albert Einstein.