Proving zero = infinity without math using the EMF spectrum - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: yada
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2017, 07:44:01 pm
content: Heres a graph of the transmission spectrum of polycarbonate in light UV and IR. A pretty boring and straight forward graph but it got me thinking; what if we extended the left side of the graph to 0? Just one more tick on the graph? Not really, if we imagine that light is in the middle of the spectrum, since it is as far as energy and wavelength go, between the 200nm and 0 there exists the other half of the spectrum; UV, xray, gamma rays, the super high energy gammas science can detect but not explain, all the way up to the energies of strings of string theory, then the energy of the singularity of the big bang. Strings would live at energies with a wave length around a few plank lengths, almost all the way up to infinite energies, not even the big bang would be able to be 100% to the left at the zero point, but it would still fit on this graph. There exists more energy in this single space on the graph then everything to the right of it combined. So before a photon could approach this zero wave length mark it would form a black hole called a "kugel blitz", because its energy would be so great from E=MC^2. So that 0 is definitely anything but zero.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2017, 08:17:17 pm
content: A wavelength shorter than the Planck length (~.2 yÅ) is not physically possible, so I don't see the point of the exercise. Nothing you have written "proves 0 = infinity", and no argument from physics could ever do so since mathematics is axiomatic.

author: Octane
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2017, 08:28:51 pm
content: What you have proven is that 1/x is 0 for limes x towards infinity. Has relatively little to do with the physical world...Same as saying an infinitely short pulse contains frequencies as high as infinity in it. True in theory, not so much in reality.When you go from wavelength to energy you are doing a scale transformation, basically as 1/x.i can also do a scale transformation and prove that 0 = 2... 2=x+2 if I take your argumentation. (Of course saying 0=2 is wrong, as is 0=inf from the OP)And trying to do math without math usually goes wrong...

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2017, 09:21:12 pm
content: The "ultraviolet catastrophe" of a previous century (q.v.:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe) was a similar problem, since frequency goes to infinity as wavelength goes to zero. Planck introduced his famous constant while solving this conundrum, which eliminated an unphysical result (infinite total output power with finite input).

author: yada
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2017, 09:54:52 pm
content: Quote from: helius on May 26, 2017, 08:17:17 pmThanks, I'm glad you're not being a dick in your criticism.

author: ludzinc
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 26, 2017, 11:07:14 pm
content: Quote from: yada on May 26, 2017, 07:44:01 pm*than

author: yada
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 12:54:21 am
content: Quote from: ludzinc on May 26, 2017, 11:07:14 pm*thine

author: ludzinc
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 07:47:56 am
content: Quote from: yada on May 27, 2017, 12:54:21 amThine = yours. Fail.

author: Octane
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 03:26:26 pm
content: *than, *thine, thine=yours.... ?!? Could somebody please elaborate for non native English speakers?

author: NottheDan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 04:24:39 pm
content: Quote from: yada on May 27, 2017, 12:54:21 amThins, Mint Thins.Thus proving the EMF spectrum is made of Girl Scouts.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 04:50:54 pm
content: Quote from: Octane on May 26, 2017, 08:28:51 pmIn my experience, math goes wrong even when I use math to do it!

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 04:55:30 pm
content: Quote from: NottheDan on May 27, 2017, 04:24:39 pmPersonally, I prefer Samoas...

author: Octane
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 05:06:09 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on May 27, 2017, 04:50:54 pmBut that is usually not math's fault...

author: Vtile
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 06:11:27 pm
content: If something goes infinity small and in number space below unity and at one point it will be nonexistent and zero for all purposes. Infinity is something too big and zero is something too small to be written down. Zero is just infinity inversed and written in more compact form. I don't know why it needs to be proven.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 06:25:21 pm
content: Quote from: Vtile on May 27, 2017, 06:11:27 pmThe true dual of infinity is infinitessimals, as used by Newton in the differential calculus. Zero has no inverse.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 06:33:01 pm
content: There's no such thing as infinity, waaaaaaaay off the right side of the plot, either.Everything real is finite and nonzero. Get used to it?Tim

author: Vtile
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 06:45:26 pm
content: Quote from: helius on May 27, 2017, 06:25:21 pmWhy? Since inverse of inverse is no inverse and zero is inverse of infinity then inverse of zero is infinity.Edit. Just adding this so some random reader doesn't judge me to be out of medication:http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0%5E-1

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 06:55:50 pm
content: The is no non-zero without zero or finite without infinite - just as there is no positive without negative, light without dark, foreground without background, ying without yang, etc, etc, etc.

author: GreyWoolfe
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 28, 2017, 12:44:51 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 27, 2017, 04:55:30 pmSo do I. I keep mine in the freezer.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 28, 2017, 01:35:05 am
content: Quote from: Octane on May 27, 2017, 03:26:26 pmJUST TO ANSWER the above post ^ ^ ^ ^ ......This little aside comes from the fact that there is much less attention being paid to spelling and grammar by many people - and the internet offers an easy place for incorrect examples of both to be presented. For the most part, re-reading such words or phrases can be enough to gain understanding of the intended message, however for those who did pay attention in class, reading them often causes discomfort ... like a spur being pressed into the back of their head.Some common examples are:(please note, these are only examples - there may be more definitions, but I'm not out to recreate the dictionary - OK?)LoosevsLoseLoose means:1. Something that is free to move around."The dogs have been letloose."or2. Not tight"He has a screwloose."Lose means:1. To no longer possess"I sometimeslosemy keys."or2. To not win in competition"My football team willlosetoday"..ThenvsThanThen means:A reference to time"The switch is turned on andthenthe capacitors charge up."Than means:A preference"I would rather have a Keysight scopethanan Owon."The extra references to "Thy" and "Thine" are a bit of silliness, since these are archaic forms of "You" and "Yours". They are not commonly used in normal modern day conversation - and the only reason (I see) why "Thine" was included above was because it sounds similar to "Then" and "Than".Obviously, this could go on for a bit - and I'm going to suggest that it goes no further.

author: meeko
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2017, 08:23:51 pm
content: Reminds me of a proof a math teacher told us once:If 0 = 1, then I am God.Add 1 to both sides, 1 = 2.God and I are 2, but 2 = 1, therefore God and I are one and the same.Q.E.D.