How do we know this is true: Matter can only be finitely arranged in a finite space.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Tailspin, Oct 30, 2014.

  1. Tailspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    101
    There is a theory that, in any finite space, there is a limit on how many ways matter can be arranged in that space. Apparently a man named Brian Greene has just written a book about this.

    This has been on my mind a lot. I've been asking alot of people on a few websites and 99% of them are 100% sure it's true, beyond the point of any disscussion.

    What I want to know is...

    How do we knoew thus theory is true?

    Who proved it?

    How did they prove it?

    Is it widely accepted by the scientific comunity?

    Is there any room for believing matter can be infinately aranged in a finite space?

    Could Brain Greene be wrong?

    Also, if I may be so bold, I would like you to be very fair and open minded when writing your answers. Keeping in mind that many theorys have been disproven in the past and no doubt will be disproven in the future. That theorys can only be based on what we currently know and we are continusly lea
    rning more.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    If matter is conscious and it intends to know remember and love its creation then it needs to have finite amount of arrangements.

    If you have ever played music there are only 7 natural notes and then they repeat, if you have ever colored there are only a few colors, and only a few shapes. It's logical to think that you can paint every masterpiece, and write every number there is to write.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,002
    I don't think it is true. Consider two points on a straight line. The distance between them can be any number of meters. I can make up any number of examples.

    When you use three points, take two points on the x axis one meter apart and place the third point any place in the plane.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Whether the opening statement is true or not really depends on whether the finite space is quantised or not.

    For example, say I have 4 boxes and 3 eggs. There is a finite number of ways that I can put the 3 eggs in the four boxes. For example, one way might be to put egg numbers 1 and 2 in box 3 and egg number 3 in box 4, leaving the other boxes empty. The boxes are the finite space, and the eggs are a given amount of matter. Make the boxes really really small and replace the eggs by fundamental particles if you like. The argument follows.

    But if space is continuous, then there's an infinite number of ways of putting even a single particle in a finite space. If I have a 1 metre space, I can put my particle at the left-hand side, or 0.0001 metres from the left-hand side, or 0.0000000345 metres from the left-hand side, or whatever. Since the number of locations between zero and 1 metre is infinite, I have infinite choice as to where to put even one particle.
     
    Motor Daddy likes this.
  9. Tailspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    101
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2014
  10. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    It cannot be proven. I am sorry that you are depresed and you have chosen this subject to center your depression on, but you are not going to get a defintive answer, that is just the way it is. Why not just hope it is the way you want and move on. I know you can't. Sorry.
     
  11. Tailspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    101
    If ithas not been, cannot be proven, why are so many people so gung-ho about it? One guy on this site said it had been proven and it was as certain as 2+2=4.
     
  12. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    You seem to be the only one that is all worked up about this.

    Well then there you go. You are now free to get on with your life and not give this subject a second thought.
     
  13. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    I guess I don't fully understand what exactly is meant by "finite space" in this context (though I certainly do in other contexts)

    Try this. The number ways to arrange \(n\) objects i.e to permute them is \(n!\). Proof by induction.

    If there are \(p\) avaible places to put them, we have the well-known combinatorial formula

    \(\frac{p!}{(p-n)!n!}\) provided only that \(p \ge n\). Again, proof by induction

    (The case that \(p=n\) solves if we adopt the standard, if somewhat puzzling, convention that \(0!=1\)

    And if both \(n\) and \(p\) are finite, then there is no known purely arithmetical operation that will make either of them infinite
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2014
  14. Tailspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    101
    I dond understand. What side of this arguement are you on? I posed that to ask why he's so certain.
    And belive me I know I am the only one, that is becuse, as a creative type, this theory has destoyed me.
     
  15. Tailspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    101
    I have no understanding of letters in math at all. Are you saying it is true?
     
  16. Tailspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    101
    What about the Planck Constant? The theory goes on to say that even if matter can be infinately arranged in a finite space, the difference would be too small for anyone to niotice anyway.
     
  17. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    Um, well, I would advise against asking questions in a specialist forum if you are not equipped to understand the answers offered.

    In my naivety, I assumed it was a Math question. Others with a different expertise assumed it was a Physics question - there seems no alternative supposition on this part of the forum (or shouldn't be)
     
  18. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Sorry to be ambiguous.
    I don't really care. You can pick one side for me if you like.
    How the hell would I know.
    Only because you decided to let it destroy you.

    Ever hear that saying:

    God grant me the serenity
    to accept the things I cannot change?

    You really need to take that to heart, dude.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    What about it?

    That sounds right. It's unlikely you'd notice the difference if I moved (say) a tennis ball 1 nanometre North from its current position.
     
  20. Tailspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    101
    As a matter of fact, no. I'm not religous.

    I just want to know if this thing has a real basis inreality and if it's widely accepted.
    Someone said to me that this had been disproven in "The uiniverse in a nutshell" is that true?
     
  21. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Have we not all discussed this topic recently, and with more urgency?

    It is probably true that there is one and only one way to make an electron within the limits of the space it occupies, but this does not seem to be what Brian Greene is writing about. All electrons are identical, and if we specify this to be the ground state, fine. But electrons are always always in motion with respect to other things. There are over 10^84 nuclei in the known universe in which they may be bound. Space is also discrete. The light cones of any adjacent points in space-time may elicit events that may or may not be observable from any other, since the BB to the present. In what manner is this "finite" in any practical sense?

    I don't think the Brian Greene is an authority on this, even limited to talking about flower arrangements. How many iterations of DNA can make a flower? How many iterations of environments that will support life like flowers for those genetic (or other) codes? How many ways can the flowers die? How many ranges of temperature and other conditions can they thrive in? How many sizes or scales can the flowers exist in? Because I am still counting them, this may not be infinite enough for you? Whatever you may think a finite space might be, it is not actually something that is fixed with respect to any other measure of space. It can expand or contract, depending on your state of motion relative to the flower(s). There is no way in this universe to demarcate what a "finite space" is, even if such a thing existed. It does not.

    And in the case of Brian Greene (and the reason I won't read anything else he ever writes) -- how many multiverses do the flowers exist / ever existed / ever will exist / in? It would be a good thing if there were only one version of Brian Greene that believes such silly ideas sufficiently to write about them, because frankly, it's irritating to keep thinking about such dead-end concepts as this one.
     
  22. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    The Planck Constant is not a theory. It's a part of a theory on the relationship between energy and light frequency in certain situations. One can incorporate this constant with others in order to create a specific length called the Planck Length. But this length is pretty much arbitrary. It just happens to be at the limit of what we can currently imagine in physics. It has a mythological importance because of the way that scientists tend to use it as a shorthand for the limits of physics and for the scale at which spacetime granularity, if it exists, must be beyond. But there is no specific theory attached to it.
     
  23. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    It is accepted by many physicist that the theory of the Planck Scale proves that, at very small distance or intervals of time, the amount of energy it would require to measure those distances would be infinite. Then without infinite energy, everything at those distances wouldn't be measurable or noticeably affect anything. Then if there was a source of infinite energy at a small point (like a model of the Big Bang) then it would get around this problem. Finding evidence of something happening at the moment of the Big Bang below the Planck Scale could prove that the universe is infinite or had infinite energy.

    Another work around this problem could also be spacetime dilation. One observers Planck Scale may be different than another observers Planck Scale. Small scales could be accessible to some observers while remaining inaccessible to other observers. If two observers scales are different, then it would take different amounts of energy to measure those smaller scales. Then there is no official theory on relativity affecting the Planck Scale. It could possibly take even more energy to measure larger scales observing on object approaching the speed of light. It could just give the appearance of the object measuring it's own scales below the Planck Scale, but from their frame of reference, they would only be able to measure to the Planck Scale of their own dilated spacetime. Then traveling close to the speed of light, they would have more energy to measure smaller scales due to their mass increase and energy/mass equivalence.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2014

Share This Page