Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum The beginning: where is it ?

The beginning: where is it ?
===.
The beginning of Universe can be:
‘ big bang’ , ‘closed- gravity’ or ‘open - empty’.
#
First question:
Where did the mass for ‘ big bang’ come from?
Second question:
Where did the mass for ‘closed- gravity’ come from?
It is clear that these two questions lead to the third question:
How can the real mass appear from ‘open - empty’ space?
#
In my opinion to answer to this question we need to analyze
three theories: QT, SRT and Theory of Ideal gas.
1
Ideal gas.
100% of physicists believe that Theory of Ideal gas is an
abstract theory with abstract – virtual particles.
And then something happens there
( a temperature or volume or pressure changes maybe by
god’s interference) and it becomes real physical gas with
real particles.

I don’t believe in their opinion, I don’t believe in their god.
I believe in science and therefore I say that only QT and SRT
can explain the changes in the Ideal gas.
Only QT and SRT can explain how the virtual world of Ideal gas
becomes real one.
2
QT.
Dirac’s quantum theory says that a ‘open - empty’ space-
- vacuum is not empty at all - virtual particles exist there.
But Dirac didn’t give us the physical parameters of this
‘open - empty’ vacuum space.
This its weak point .
3
SRT.
The basis of SRT is an abstract ( -4D).
This its weak point.
#
In my opinion, if instead of ( -4D) and Dirac’s space
we take the physical laws and parameters of Ideal gas -
- all abstractions disappear and the real
picture of Universe will appear in front of us.
=============.
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==============================.

Surely an ideal gas is a hypothetical substance that is no more able to produce matter than is any mathematical concept able to conjure up reality.

IMO, the matter resulting from the Big Bang came from the energy of the BB, which must already have existed in some form.

It is reasonable to accept the BB as the birth of our Universe, but it is much more difficult to argue that it can have been the start of everything.

Nothing can come from absolutely nothing, so something must always have existed. One may call that something "God", "quantum foam", "eternal cosmos" or whatever one chooses, it must always have been there. The BB must have been simply a conversion of one kind of "something" into another.

After looking at some of the problems involved in trying to understand the origin of the Universe, Paul Davies (State of the Universe. New Scientist Supplement. 09.10.2004. Davies. Paul, When Time Began.) says:

“In spite of these technical obstacles, one may say quite generally that once space and time are made subject to quantum principles, the possibility immediately arises of space and time ‘switching on’, or popping into existence without the need for prior causation, entirely in accordance with the laws of quantum physics.”

The “nit-picker” within refuses to remain subdued and bursts out with a loud cry of “But!”. It is reasonably easy to see how the laws of quantum physics can be applied to the spontaneous decay of a uranium atom (as Davies had done earlier). The uranium already existed, so did the laws of quantum physics, therefore the laws could be applied to the uranium atom without any problem. The same cannot be said of the Universe, that, according to this theory, did not exist before the laws of quantum mechanics were applied to it; nothing (except, presumably, the laws of quantum mechanics), existed, so these laws would have had to be applied to “nothing”. It might be argued that this can be achieved if we take, for example, the concept of quantum uncertainty. If we try to apply uncertainty to nothing, what happens? Surely the only uncertainty that can be applied to nothing is that it might be “something”. One assumes that that is the way the argument goes.

First there was nothing, but according to the laws of quantum mechanics we cannot be sure that it was nothing, therefore it could have been something. If nothing became something, then that something could have been the infant Universe. Once uncertainty has turned nothing into something, that something is “real” and we can dispense with uncertainty. Does anyone feel that the ring of familiarity here is due to the fact that we treated God in much the same way? Seriously though, I have a bit of a problem with applying quantum mechanics in a situation in which there is absolutely nothing, because in such a situation, there would, surely, be no quantum mechanics to be applied, and therefore no uncertainty to apply to that “nothing”; unless, that is, we regard quantum mechanics as having some abstract “eternity”, in which case we would be taking it out of space and time and making it “supernatural”.

socratus

This is just a nit, but I thought I would mention it. When you use SRT are you referring to the Special Theory of Relativity (SR)? If you are then I think in this post you should be using the General Theory of Relativity (GR). SR is special because it only applies to reference frames moving at constant velocity. The universe has many reference frames moving at varying velocities. As I said, this is a nit, not something to get all excited about.

As far as the ideal gas laws are concerned. They are ideal, because they are simplifications. They assume that all the particles in the gas are point masses, that is they have no length, width, or breadth. That is the idealization, because gasses are not composed of point masses. The gas laws were developed before the theory of atoms was developed, because nobody knew just what gases were composed of. One of the major factors in the use of the gas laws is that they apply only over a certain range of temperatures and pressures. For what we consider normal temperatures and pressures they work extremely well, but they are classical laws. Classical laws were the laws developed before quantum theory (QT) and GR were developed. To figure out what was happening scientists made the simplifying assumption that the gases were point masses, just so they could work with them. As far as I know they did not really think they were working with point masses, but since they didn't know what they were, they used them to work things out. The point masses didn't just suddenly become atoms and molecules.

Say something, Socratus! You can't leave us in no-man's-land.

If I try to apply uncertainty to ‘nothing’, what happens?
/ Bill S. /
==========================.
In brief. / my opinion /

In the beginning there was ‘Nothing’.
Then according to the law of Heisenberg’s
Uncertainty principle we cannot be sure that it was
‘nothing’ as absence of everything.
If Uncertainty law can be applied to ‘Nothing’ is that
it might be ‘something ‘ there.
If ‘nothing ‘ became ‘something real ‘, then that
something could have been the infant Universe.
#
But then you have problem:
!
Seriously though, I have a bit of a problem with
applying quantum mechanics in a situation in which there
is absolutely nothing, because in such a situation, there would,
surely, be no quantum mechanics to be applied,
and therefore no uncertainty to apply to that “nothing”;
unless, that is, we regard quantum mechanics as having some
abstract “eternity”, in which case we would be taking it out of space
and time and making it “supernatural”.
/ Bill S. /

What problem do you have?
You don’t believe yourself that this is possible.

What to do?
It needs long time to accept not only the another
but also the own ideas.
Take for example Planck. Long time he didn’t believe
that his own quant is independent particle.

I know this situation also by myself.
I also didn’t believe myself that ideas which
I began to understand can be true ideas.
It took for me long time to accept my own ideas.

Maybe this is also your way.( !?)

Best wishes
Socratus.

Any 'nothing' that can host a law or a deity or anything else, either concrete or abstract, is not absolutely nothing.

In brief: Any 'nothing' is not absolutely nothing.
So.
1
Can any 'nothing' be not ‘absolutely nothing’?
For example:
‘ Ideal gas’, ‘ Kirchhoff black body’, Minkowski (-4D)
and ‘Minkowski light cone’,
etc . . . and . . .
2
And can ‘ something’ (!) be ‘absolutely nothing’?
For example:
‘Quark’, ‘String theory’, .’Black hole’, (!) . .’CERN’ (!) . .
. . . . etc . . and . .
3.
And many years ago Aristotle wrote:
‘The Nature is afraid of Nothingness’.
And now some people think that ‘ Nothingness’
is not exactly ‘nothing’.
And now the Quantum theory agrees with Aristotle.
And so, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the knowledge
of Nature on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics.

Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
===================.

That's not exactly what I attempted to say, i.e. that absolute 'nothing' is a valid concept that excludes any kind of existence whatsoever. So for me, it appears true that 'something', not absolute 'nothing', produced our universe.
The kind of 'nothing' that physicists say can produce 'something' is not absolutely nothing.

To talk of nothing that is really something is butchering the English language. "Absolutely nothing" is a tautology that becomes a necessity only when one starts messing about with nothingness. Why can't we just have "nothing" and "something" and find another term for that kind of 'nothing' that physicists say can produce 'something'.

It's not a tautology, Bill, it's a means of labeling different two concepts of nothing. Perhaps you might say that the physicists in question have been "messing about with nothingness"All you have to do is convince those physicists who insist that something did come from nothing, that the 'nothing' they refer to is in fact 'something'.

That sounds a bit like convincing the Pope that St Peter was an atheist.

What part of nothing is something?

I'm glad you said that, because looking back through this thread, I find I used "absolutely nothing" myself.

I've been giving this some thought and I have just one question: Is there a concept of nothing that is not nothing, if so, how do you distinguish it from something? (Actually, I think that's two questions!)

Well, let's look at it. There's "the glass with nothing in it" kind of nothing. We know very well what that means, and it doesn't mean "nothing at all". Then there's the idea of spacetime with nothing at all in it. Unlike the "nothing" in the glass, this "nothing" means "not a single atom or quark"; yet neither does this mean "nothing at all" - it means "nothing except the existence of dimensions". Then there's a comprehensive "nothing" that means "the non-existence of every conceivable thing, including dimensions".

Rede, I appreciate what you are saying, but I was under the impression that science, as far as possible, dealt in precision. We all know that when we say a glass has nothing in it, we don't really mean nothing; simply none of the things one might expect to find in a full glass.

The idea of spacetime with nothing in it is only a little less imprecise if we accept that it is a mass of virtual particles, all doing their thing.

I'm not sure that I accept dimensions alone as constituting "something". Like numbers, which I believe have no existence of their own, dimensions are concepts which we impose upon space for our own purposes.

I accept that it is sometimes convenient to use "nothing" in an imprecise way, but there has to be a danger that without care it can lead to the same sort of confusion of thought as failing to make a distinction between mathematical and physical infinities.

It is, of course, for you to decide what you should believe regarding numbers and dimensions, and your comments are a fitting reminder regarding the essence of this thread. The title "the beginning: where is it" leaves plenty of scope for philosophizing and belief, and precious little for science. I don't have anything useful to add to the (evidently useless) things I've already said

(for some unknown reason I can't edit the above post so...)

I won't try to speak for those scientists concerned regarding their personal views on the meaning of "nothing", but the "nothing" to which they sometimes refer is necessarily a multi-dimensional continuum in which quantum events occur. That, excuse my persistence, is not nothing. It's multi-dimensional continuum in which quantum events occur!

Rede, I don't recall your ever having said anything "useless". One of the reasons I persist in posting odd ideas I am trying to make sense of, is that you patiently treat them with liberal doses of common sense.

Your last post suggests that, philosophy notwithstanding, there may be less distance between our positions that at first appeared.



Perhaps I have just been expressing it badly, but that is precisely my point: the nothing to which they refer "is not nothing". It must, therefore, be something.

Then we agree. Coincidentally, I've just seen a snippet of a conversation with Michio Kaku in which he said the same thing - far more eloquently than I did

My sole point is, of course, that, notwithstanding the impossibility of scientific proof, those scientists who hypothesize 'a universe from nothing' should state definitively what they mean by nothing, even if only because it often seems to crop up in religion v science debates (i.e. rows).

Confuses us old pedants, as well.

The physicists say that:
1
The Dirac’s virtual particles are ’something’
2
the dark energy is ’something’
3
the dark matter is ’something’
=.
It is pity that physicists say that they are ’something’
but didn’t give their physical parameters.
===.

rede, I'm don't believe there are very many scientists who really say that the universe came from nothing. That may sound like what they are saying, but in fact they have no idea where the universe came from. At this time they can't extrapolate back in time any further than the big bang. Before that scientists just don't know what was going on. There has been a lot of speculation, but there is nothing to really guide them. Given time we may develop some idea of what happened way back then, but I'm not going to hold my breath. The best we know is at the big bang the universe as we know it came into existence. What it was like before that is completely open. About the best they can say is that the universe came from a singularity where the whole universe was compressed into an infinitely small point. And of course that raises some philosophical questions that I don't want to get into.

Now as far as something coming from nothing, the closest thing I know of are the quantum virtual particles that occur just because the Uncertainty Principle requires them. They pop up and disappear all the time, but have almost no effect on the bigger world around us. I say almost no effect because they have been detected in well constructed experiments on the Casimir Effect. But they are well understood theoretically, even if they don't make any sense to us. And the fact that they don't make sense to us is what bothers a lot of people. For people who evolved to see a macroscopic world, the microscopic quantum world seems to be totally insane.

Bill Gill

Are you saying that these are examples of "something" that really are "nothing"?

I think it raises more than just philosophical questions, but I agree that this is probably not the appropriate place to bring those out again.
However, I am not entirely at ease with virtual particles as an example of something from nothing. Presumably the vacuum energy is a sine qua non of the popping in and out of existence that these virtual particles do, and the vacuum energy seems to be something.

Well, that is what I mean about QM seeming to be totally insane. The vacuum energy is indeed associated with the virtual particles popping in and out. But we have no real experience with something happening at random that way. While we see things happen that we didn't expect, we still figure there must have been something to cause them. But the virtual particles really do seem to happen just because they do. They are to be expected from a study of QM, but at the same time they are some of the results of QM that seem totally insane. So I guess what I am saying is that yes, the vacuum energy is something, but there is nothing in our "real world" experience that can explain where it comes from in a vacuum, where there is supposed to be nothing. Now I hope you feel some of my frustration at trying to figure out what I am talking about. I sometimes have a problems figuring out what I am talking about myself.

Bill Gill

Bill, the feelings of frustration/confusion you mention are my constant companions. As a driving force, though, they keep life interesting.

I'm not sure that my understanding of the vacuum energy is main stream. I see it as something that, in its entirety, always exists, although at an individual level particles are coming and going all the time.

Thanks for the post, Bill. I wouldn't want to mislead you into thinking that I wasn't aware of the info you provided; but, certainly, it does sound like what some are saying. I'm raising the point, as I indicated, that some scientists have presented themselves as keen keen proponents of "a universe from nothing" - evidently in response to creationism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfOL_oGgRVk&feature=related

On the other hand a good deal of re-thinking has occurred in the past 10 yrs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bGx3UB-Slg&feature=related

In my opinion: every elementary particle, which cannot be
pictured as a thing, with its own geometrical and physical
parameters is ‘nothing’
Of course, physicists can use this particle as a ‘point’ and
describe an experiment, but the philosophical essence
will be hidden. And later we will read his rapport:
'this experiment was originally planned with a view to
a possible measurement of . . . . '
but . . . but the essence,
the understanding of micro – subatomic reality lies beyond
the capabilities of rational thought.
===.

Our knowledge.
Quantum of light is point.
Electron is point/ sphere.
Proton is point / sphere.
They created an (point / sphere) atom
The atoms form a cell.
The cells form everything.
All the rest are trivialities.
==.

In fact none of this is true. A photon is not a point, it has a size, which is described by a probability function. The size varies depending on the frequency.

The electron is worked with as a point, but it has many parameters (spin, charge, etc.) which indicate that it has some kind of complex structure, and a point could not support that structure. But it is small enough that it can be considered as a point in the mathematics used to work with it. At a finer scale its size would have to be considered.

The proton is definitely not a point, since it is made up of 3 quarks and some gluons. None of these is in fact a point. The gluons in particular have length, which is variable. But claiming that they are all points is just totally wrong.

Bill Gill

If we can't picture it doesn't exist? Isn't that rather an anthropocentric view of existence?

If we can't reach T=0K it doesn't exist?
Isn't that rather an anthropocentric view of existence?

Our knowledge.

Quantum of light is a point.
Electron is a point/ sphere.
Proton is a point / sphere.
They created an (point / sphere) atom.
The atoms form :
a) stars . . .planet,
b) cells . . . . life (consciousness) .
All the rest are trivialities.
==.
Questions.
Why does Physics have many branches which
don’t incorporate and doesn’t have Unified theory?
Where does consciousness come from?
=============.

I see you are still ignoring the fact that a lot of the things you say are just wrong.

But in response to your question about why physics doesn't have a unified theory. Physics doesn't have a unified theory because we don't know enough yet to develop a unified theory. Keep in mind that there has very seldom been anything that was figured out in one giant step. Before Newton there were a number of different laws about how things moved. People understood about how planets moved, and they knew about how things fall. Newton figured out a small group of laws that covered both things, and did it in a much more complete way. Since then we have gotten a lot further into how things work, but we just haven't gotten far enough to develop a Theory of Everything (TOE). A lot of people are working on it, but it isn't easy. We hope that sooner or late we will figure it out.

Bill Gill

It would be if you believed it!

Actually,do you believe in String Theory or M-theory.
Many Professors like Susskind support this theory. But also have many object it.
If strings combined become membrane and in the 11th dimension, two membrane "touch" each other and form the bing bang in our dimension, will that possible?

gan

Personally I am not much in love with string theory, or its extension M theory. They both seem to be overblown, and without any way to actually match them to the universe we live in. I just read Susskinds book "The Black Hole War" but he didn't go into string theory in that one. I am currently reading "Warped Passages" by Lisa Randall. She discusses string theory and M theory, but still hasn't convinced me. She does point out some of the problems with string theory. However, string theorists do seem to have given us some great mathematical tools for investigating the far reaches of physics.

As far as interaction between branes is concerned, I have absolutely no idea how they work. I have an undergraduate degree in physics, but the math used in any of this is far beyond my understanding. I need to read more popularized information to be able to reach any conclusions.

I have also read "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolin. I think he has some good points in his argument against string theory. I admit that part of his problem with physics today is that his ideas aren't getting the attention he thinks they deserve, because so many physics departments are concentrating on string theory to the exclusion of other approaches. I kind of agree that they are probably concentrating too hard on one approach. I think that real progress is more likely to be made if a lot of different approaches are used.

Bill Gill

TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING
[Simplest Theory Of Everything!]

Creator/Author: Khalid Masood

“TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING” is ‘The Time Universe Theory’!

I propose, only Time exists in the Universe: “Time Creates Space, Life, Consciousness, and the Universe Itself”

The only truth about the physical Universe is that it is not physical ! The smartest thing of the Universe is Universe itself ! Universe is not only small and finite. Universe ‘on the whole’ is smartest phenomenon of the Universe ! ‘On the whole’ Universe is ‘shapeless’, ‘massless’ and ‘weightless’. I CAN PICK IT UP !!! Einstein’s “second law,” m = E/ c^2 i.e. m = E/ c2 [ How mass drives from pure Energy.], raises the question whether mass can be understood more deeply as energy. And can we build, as Wheeler put it, ” Mass Without Mass “,? are the best predictions in favour of my ” Time Theory of Everything “. In my view the first question is “How pure energy drives from TIME?”. ”The Universe is not what it used to be, nor what it appears to be.” as Frank W ilczek of MIT quoted in first chapter ‘Getting to it’ of his book titled ” The Lightness of Being ” [ mass, ether, and the unification of forces ] also supports my theory. Infinity is finity ‘on the whole’. There is nothing original under the physical phenomena. All physical properties of the universe are secondary in nature.There is a Universe behind the ‘Physical Universe’ which is ‘DARK’ and primary Universe. If a “Theory of Everything” is Holy Grail of cosmology, “Time Theory of Everything” is Holy Grail of physics. Physicists are hunting for an elusive particle that would reveal the presence of a new kind of field that permeates all of reality. Finding that Higgs field will give us a more complete understanding about how the elusive universe works! I believe in bold imagination in research. I believe universe is not acadamic, and is not bound of our physical theories. Capture Higgs particle, ‘eyes on a prize particle’, the search for the Higgs boson [God Particle] and creation of micro black holes is nonsense idea. Higgs boson is not Destiny. We have to rethink TIME and ETERNITY. Basic and primary stuff of the universe is not physical. All matter, energy and fundamental forces of nature are secondary and reffered by a unified primary force of nature. There is a ‘co-ordination force’ in between ‘God’ and all secondary forces of nature, which is more important than Higgs boson !! I suggest this force is TIME. TIME is invisible presence and the only BASIC BUILDING BLOCK of the Universe and Everything in it ! Deep down, the particles and forces of the universe are a manifestation of TIME. TIME is a coordination force of the Universe and Multiverse referred by Nature. Nothing has independent existence except TIME. All three and extra dimensions of space are of time’s dimensions. Time is not a 4th dimension of space. TIME IS ALL DIMENSIONS. PASSWORD of TIME is in the Mind of GOD. Tell me about the NATURE OF TIME, I can create the UNIVERSE, a MACRO BLACK HOLE, Higgs boson and even LIFE ! “If all cosmologists of the world say a foolish thing it is still a foolish thing !” I WILL CHANGE THE HISTORY OF TIME ! I have suggested in my ” TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING ” that God does not play PARTICLES game with the Universe ! Three of space and one of time that three space dimensions and one of time dimension is wrong idea. Time is included in three space dimensions, but not as a 4th dimension i.e all dimensions of space are dimensions of time. TIME IS NOT A MANUFACTURED QUANTITY. Time has independent existence and fundamental. Space is a manufactured quantity and secondary form of time. I believe in infinite extra spatial dimensions of ‘TIME’ only, and I know what these dimensions are, but I don’t believe time as extra dimension with space. I don’t believe in extra dimensions of space, I believe in extra dimensions of time! Three dimensions of space and one dimension of of time is absolutely wrong idea. Our physical universe exists in three or 11 dimensions of time! [as string theory proposed,10 of space and one of time dimension] “There isn’t just one dimension of time,” says Itzhak Bars of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.”There are two. One whole dimension has until now gone entirely unnoticed by us. Two time / 2T Physics” [New scientist 13 October 2007, Hypertime, Cover story] Why we need two dimensions of time? Why not we need 11 and many more dimensions of TIME ! Higgs boson should be named “TIME PARTICLE”

A NEW HYPOTHESIS:

I don’t believe particles in any shape or dimensions as basic building blocks of matter, energy, and everything in the universe. I have an alternative “Fluctuating Extreme Levels” hypothesis which is a part of my “Time Theory of Everything” [Extreme Level Theory] Extreme Level Theory suggests that basic building blocks of everything in the universe are composed of ‘Fluctuating Extreme Levels’ of energy. In ‘Extreme Level Theory’ of time, Extreme Levels correspond to different entities and quantities. If Extreme Level Theory proves correct, photons, electrons and neutrinos are different due to changes in the fluctuations of extreme levels. Prior to Extreme Level Theory, subatomic ‘particles’ were envisioned as tiny balls or points of energy. Extreme Level Theory works on the premise that the tiniest subatomic bits that make up the elements of atoms actually behave like ‘Fluctuating Extreme Levels’ and not like vibrating or dancing strings! Higg’s Field is a “Time’s Field”…….. Photon is no more now a particle, a wave, or has features of both! Photon exist at fluctuating extreme level of energy. My “TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING” will change the meaning of Matter, Energy, Natural Forces, Consciousness, Life & Extraterrestrial Life and Death.
Khalid Masood
khalidcustoms@gmail.com

This looks like one version of many version of "hologram" view of the universe.

At a physics level you can sort of explain your way around problems although gravity you will need explain how and why it appears? However most hologram world theory I have seen have real problems with QM.

1.) Why does QM exist and exactly what is happening when I put something in your world into superposition.

2.) QM explicitly proves there is no local reality it is represented bells inequality (here is one version of many of the proof: http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/disproving_local_realism-79216) ... or you can even try the crackpot randii challenge (http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168). Why do no two observers have the same realism if this is a single unified illusion?

Start with those two when you answer those we will move on to some of the harder ones.

Interesting theory, Khalid. I tend to like ideas that are not mainstream. However, as presented above, your theory does seem to be more of a statement of belief, rather than a scientific idea, supported by reason.

No one could argue with such statements as "I believe in infinite extra spatial dimensions of ‘TIME’ only"; because, obviously, you are free to believe what you choose. I suspect, though, that you will have to do a lot more than make dogmatic statements if you are to win many converts.

Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
Questions:
Can Infinity have concrete physical parameters?
Can infinity be the beginning of location?
============ .
Socratus

perhaps you should start with the basics

The shape of space
http://athome.harvard.edu/threemanifolds/watch.html

Start there and we will discuss infinity as a concept of space after.

So you are trying to turn infinity into abstraction and it simply isn't ... it's no more abstract than PI or any irrational or complex number.

The problem is that the cosmological constant /
critical density of the universe doesn’t give to creat sphere.

Whats a sphere got to do with things I have no idea why you bring that up?

Whats a sphere got to do with things I have no idea why you bring that up?
Orac

Sorry for interruption. What is creat sphere? infinity will not be the start of a destination. In classical mechanics,it won't be. We imagine all the axis from ourselves(the origin is us) to where you want to go.

___________________________________________________________________
"Every moment of your life is infinitely creative and the Universe is endlessly bountiful. Just put forth a clear enough request, and everything your heart desires must come to you."
written by Shakti Gawain

While this is undoubtedly true of mathematical infinities, the concept of "true" infinity (physical infinity, if there is such a thing) can have nothing to do with number, rational or irrational.

Same question I was asking gan ... but I think he is just being evasive as he seems prone be, I think he is just trolling.

Not quite true if I was on a featureless sphere and started walking. I could walk to infinity and never reach the end.

In essence you have to be able to recognize features to be able to recognize less than infinity in space terms otherwise you would have no idea your have come full circle assuming space was a sphere or some closed shape. Now don't say but you would recognize stars and galaxies because assuming even light speed travel they will all have moved by the time you get back to the exact same place in space but it will all look different.

This is the importance of space manifolds how would you even recognize less than infinite space.