• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

How Nothing Created Everything

A

Anonymous

Guest
:eek!!!!:
How Nothing Created Everything

Let start with some basic mathematics
  • 5/5=1
  • 4/4=1
  • 3/3=1
  • 2/2=1
  • 1/1=1
Let's assume
  • 0/0=1

This creates the possiblity of Base_0 mathematics

  • 0=0
  • (0/0) + (0/0) =2
  • (0/0) / ((0/0) + (0/0) = 0.5
  • 0 - (0/0) = -1
  • ((0/0 + 0/0 +0/0) + (0/0 + 0/0)) * (0/0 + 0/0) = 10

Complex yes but it the lowest possible base.
 
Yeah, with those assumptions you could probably do whatever you wanted with mathematics.
 
In actual fact, 0/0 = infinity

put that in your calculator and smoke it!
 
Uh I forget... something like 0 will go into 0 an infinite number of ties. I'm not sure how to explain it.

perhaps I should have added a ;) or somesuch just in case I' wrong. But it is more likely than 0/0=1. Oh hell I was just playing games with your mind OK? :p

By the way, since white reflects all light, and black absorbs all light, black is in fact white but only from the inside!
 
White could equal Black since it is there are just name of colours.
We could be wrong?
 
Hi.
Alot of Quantum theorists have problems with their calculations and choose to work out that infinity /infinity = 1 or in some case even 0! So you can dispense with them? Yeah right. Unfortunately these little tricks allow us tools to build most of our modern technology. Also I believe for most of recorded history 0 did not exist in the monetary systems of the western world which caused alot of problems with Roman Football matches!. Also in some ways 0 does not exist, there is always something there; you have to qualify the 0 and maybe with Quatum physics there is not 0 but just a very low probability. Who knows not me.
 
O.K. lets see.

Take the example,

f(x)=x/x

and then take the limit x->0.

in this case f(x->0)=1.

Now try

g(x)=(x^2)/x

the limit x->0 now produces the answer, g(x->0)=0.

Lastly, try

h(x)=x/(x^2)

In the limit x->0, this becomes infinite.

Note that all of these cases are equal to the statement "0/0" in the limit. What is happening is that this number is undefined. It is nothing and everything, and hence is mathematically meaningless.

Regarding the reference to quantum mechanics, the trick is to write the theory as an approximation that then becomes exact in some limit. (for example by performing the calculation on a lattice, and then letting the lattice spacing tend to zero.) A lot of working quantities end off becoming infinite in the limit. What you do to fix this problem is to realise that the "real" measurable quantities are subtly different to these raw quantities, (e.g. in quantum field theory you never measure the raw or bare mass of a particle, you only measure the "dressed" mass, i.e. the apparent mass of the particle when it is interacting with a cloud of virtual particles.) If you rewrite the equations in terms of the "real" quantities, and then take the limit, the infinities (or at least most of them) cancel out. The above explanation is more or less correct, though it has been quite a while since I last did any QFT calculations.


:)
 
I have just one question, guys: did the rules of mathematics invent themselves?
 
Hi Again.
How can infinities cancel out? Except when scientists do not want them to. Isn' Calculus magic it allgets smaller and so we can eventually forget it, ( Try that with homeopathy). I find it amazing how science in general chooses to turn a blind eye to stuff that does not fit in, and also to stuff that it can not reconcile with its present "Model". However it does let me play some pretty good games on my computer so I guess I will have to accept it.
 
x/x=1
thus
x=1*x

when x=infinity then x/x=1

so what about -1 / -1 = 1
 
xeno said:
Hi Again.
How can infinities cancel out? Except when scientists do not want them to. Isn' Calculus magic it allgets smaller and so we can eventually forget it, ( Try that with homeopathy). I find it amazing how science in general chooses to turn a blind eye to stuff that does not fit in, and also to stuff that it can not reconcile with its present "Model". However it does let me play some pretty good games on my computer so I guess I will have to accept it.

Good name, given the questions that you're asking. Hopefully it won't take an infinite number of steps to get to an answer.

It all comes down to the idea of a limit. For example in the case of calculus we can work out that the gradient of the function f(x)=x^2, by the following technique.

The gradient at x=x_0 is given by

gradient(x=x_0)=((x_0+d)^2-x_0^2)/d

in the limit d->0.

The improtant thing is to work out the answer for finite d. i.e.

gradient(x=x_0)=(x_0^2 + 2*d*x_0 + d^2 - x_0^2)/d
=(2*d*x_0 + d^2)/d
=2*x_0 + d

This is the answer for finite d.

Now we take the limit that d->0 et voila

gradient(x=x_0)=2*x_0

Now, if we go back to the discussion of the infinities cancelling, I'll attempt to give an example of the sort of way in which it can happen.

Imagine that we perform a calculation by discretising space onto a lattice of N points. Say that our answer comes out to

Ans = 12 + (N^2)/5

Clearly for the continuum limit N->Infinity, and our answer becomes somewhat large ;)

Now, kets say that we realise that the answer that we have just worked out is the idealised case, and that the number is not one that we can measure directly. In that case we try to work out what the measurable quantity is. Again we can do this for the discrete case, and we will find that there is generally a correction term, say

Ans_Measure = 12 + (N^2)/5 - Correction

where the correction is equal to say 3 + (N^2)/5.

Then we find that the real measurable quantity comes out to be

Ans_Measure = 12 + (N^2)/5 - 3 - (N^2)/5
= 9

This is quite well behaved in the N->Infinity limit. At this point the panic is over.

I hope that this example illustrates the kind of way in which you can legitimately cancel out one infinity with another.:)
 
adampanic said:
x/x=1
thus
x=1*x

when x=infinity then x/x=1

so what about -1 / -1 = 1

Not 100% sure what you're trying to get at here. The first line is generally true. (Though for x=0, it is only true as a limit.) The second line is an identity, and is basically stating that
x=x.

Note that for the case
x=a*x
where a<>1 then this is only true for x=0.

x=infinity, is a bit iffy. It is certainly true in the case that x->infinity. (i.e. you can make x as big as you like and it is still true.)

The last line is absolutely fine. No problem there. Still don't see what you are trying to get at. 0/0 is still a bit of a problem.
 
adampanic said:
:eek!!!!:

This creates the possiblity of Base_0 mathematics

Other thing to be aware of is that for a valid base you should be able to write any positive integer in the following fashion

x = a*Base^0 + b*Base^1 +c*Base^2 + d*Base^3 + ....

where the a,b,c,d etc are all integers greater or equal to 0, and also less than the base.

It is here that base zero falls over.;)

Mind you, if you want to see some truly wacky stuff, have a look at Grassman algebras. They are something else.:D
 
Ouch my brain hurts, does anyone think that science will benefit from the solution to this apparant dead end, I mean is'nt it a bit like the meaning of life and everything, do we really need to know?:(
 
Thankyou Fortis for patiently explaining it. I will have to spend some time studying it though as my Maths is as Rusty as my exercise bike is dusty. Bye! ( PS the Name is just a play on my Hash name)
 
Good Fortean science and maths!

This is part of an article on US scientist Bernard Haisch's website
http://www.ufoskeptic.org/secret.html :-

There is a strong hint of a much richer potential reality in the mathematical ideas of Goedel and Turing -- two of the most influential mathematicians of the 20th century -- and, most recently, in the discovery of the infinitely long, utterly incalculable number called Omega by theoretician Gregory Chaitin who took up over 20 years ago where Turing had left off -- see also the New Scientist article The Omega Man, by science writer Marcus Chown. As Chown puts it: "Chaitin has shown that there are an infinite number of mathematical facts but, for the most part, they are unrelated to each other and impossible to tie together with unifying theorems." In other words, mathematically, there is no single, preferred set of fundamental truths. The mathematics that describes our reality is just one archipelago of self consistent postulates and theorems in a limitless ocean with infinite islands bearing no relationship to ours. Since physics is described by mathematics, this may imply that what we perceive with microscopes and telescopes and particle accelerators as ordinary physical reality is also but one tiny subset of an infinitely greater reality. Alternate realities created by other consciousnesses could be equally real yet radically different from ours.

The links given are:
http://www.cs.umaine.edu/~chaitin/
http://www.newscientist.com/features.jsp?id=ns2281

(But the second one no longer connects, after Website redesign)
 
DanJW said:
In actual fact, 0/0 = infinity

put that in your calculator and smoke it!

0/0 = "Result of function is undefined" (not infinity)

Kind regards,

Garry W. Denke
Geologist/Geophysicist
 
This isn't even base 0, if you think about it:

Base 10 allows the range of values 0-9

Each time we reduce the base value by one we reduce the range by one until we reach the point where:

Base 2 allows the range 0-1
Base 1 allows only the value 0
Base 0 therefore has a null value range.

So in base 0 we have no mathematics because we have no numbers.
 
BlackRiverFalls said:
This isn't even base 0, if you think about it:

Base 10 allows the range of values 0-9

Each time we reduce the base value by one we reduce the range by one until we reach the point where:

Base 2 allows the range 0-1
Base 1 allows only the value 0
Base 0 therefore has a null value range.

So in base 0 we have no mathematics because we have no numbers.

A great explanation by BlackRiverFalls.

Kind regards,

Garry W. Denke
Geologist/Geophysicist
 
this may be duming it down a little but ,if i have an empty cup,bank account,hand etc

no matter what trick of said maths proves there is still nowt there!

anyone who trys to persuade you other wise is trying to sell you something.....
 
I emailed my 3rd year Oxford physics undergrad son about this and here's his reply-

Hi ma,

In my professional opinion, it's a load of bollocks. Consider:

1x0 = 2x0
So 1x0 / 2x0 = 1
Divide top and bottom by 0 to get:
1/2 = 1

So it doesn't work.

The assumption that 0/0=1 is unfounded because you can start with Ax0/Bx0
and end up with the wrong result by showing A/B=1, which isn't the case if A
and B aren't the same.

Erm, so there you are.

:confused:
 
Back
Top