Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Hitch-hikers' Guide to Infinity

Physical infinity and physical zero can be argued to be the same, implying that 'any physical thing should be finite'. In that context, ie, when we consider only that two, it has no past or future as nothing would have existed in the past and nothing will exit in the future. So it is always the present. However, you are not suggesting that, I think.

You may be suggesting that the present cosmos is 'zero' and 'infinite' at the same time. And, so it is always 'the present' for the cosmos. If this is not a mathematical statement, but a physical statement, then 'equal to' becomes 'equivalent in a physical sense'. This can mean that the 'infinite cosmos' does not change with time and so it is not possible to differentiate it from a 'zero cosmos'.

If you are thinking on the above lines, then our ideas converge to that extent. However, the cosmos by virtue of its 'the present-status' denies any role for an observer, and hence denies any 'logical assumption'. But the 'finite universes in the cosmos' (proposed by me) are free from that 'infinite-zero syndrome', and offer a role for the observer and a possibility of 'logical assumptions'. So my argument is that the role of science is restricted to the finite universe of ours. The rest (including other universes if any and the cosmos as a whole) has to be left to the philosophers.

Finiter, you may have already answered these questions, but shortage of time makes it more practical to ask (again?) rather than go hunting.

In your theory can:
1. an infinite "something" be composed of finite objects?
2. an infinite "something" contain finite objects?

You have developed the infinity/zero/present idea on more fronts than I had. All I had done, so far, was to think that the present becomes more illusive, the closer we try to look at it. Ultimately, we have to say either that it has extent, Planck time perhaps, or it does not have extent; in which case, it would seem to be possible to describe it as "infinitely small". This seems to leave us with three possibilities:
1. Time is quantised.
2. Time is not quantised.
3. Time is not real, it is just a conventional way of recording change.

I know where you stand on 1 & 2, but what about 3?

Regarding the first part: In my theory, infinite space (I will not call it 'infinite something' because it will create confusion)is real, but without matter it is physically 'nothing ', and represents the limit of reality (zero of reality). So when I say the infinite space contains a very large number of finite universes, it does not mean that the infinite space is composed of finite things. The space is composed of space only and not matter. An infinite space (because it is space) can accommodate(not exactly contain) finite objects in it. Simply put, space is real in itself, matter just exists in the three dimensional space, and there is no inherent relation between space and matter.

Regarding the second part: Time is real and infinite like space, but without matter, it is physically nothing. However, it is not just something connected with change; it is real in itself, whether anything changes or not.

Thus in my theory, for a physical world to exist there should be matter, and the number of matter particles in the cosmos will be finite (even though metaphorically we can say it is infinite). For the three dimensional matter to exist, there should be a three dimensional space. Thus, in addition to the infinite space, we have to deal with the 'space connected with matter'. This 'space dimension' of matter changes with time. So matter has a 'time dimension' also. Though the infinite space and infinite time are non-quantized, the 'space and time associated with matter' are quantized.

Finiter won't like it but to be released tomorrow

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html

The vast infinite vacuum of space is indeed popping in and out of existance.

I can hear it now but wait there has to be another explaination (waves hands) :-)

I don't see why Finiter would necessarily dislike this. His theory differentiates between infinite nothingness and 'space connected with matter'. Perhaps I am misunderstanding his theory, but I would have thought that something might exist in the 'space connected with matter', and that this "something" could be converted into particles.

Just trying to get my head round this one. Are you saying that time is a real entity, but it exists only if/where matter exists, and that without matter it does not exist?

If this is so; in what sense is it a real entity?

"What then is time? If no one asks me, I know;
if I wish to explain it to someone who asks, I know not." St. Augustine.

Finiter, your infinite nothingness prompts a thought. In the sentence: "nothing can be infinite" the meaning varies depending on where you place the stress. which, if any of the following would you agree with.

1. “Nothing can be infinite”: meaning, it is not possible for anything to be infinite.

2. “Nothing can be infinite”: meaning, it is possible for nothing (= the absence of anything) to be infinite.

3. “Nothing can be infinite”: having more or less the same meaning as the first statement, but implying that it could be finite.

Orac will probably say I'm playing word games, but Rev should be proud of me.

In my theory, the particles cannot get converted into 'space' or 'energy'. The 'space connected with matter' implies only that matter has volume (that two particles cannot remain at the same position) and the position of the particle can change (the particle can move).

Physical world is real. Real things can have only positive values greater than zero for their mass, volume, energy, etc. Zero is the limit of physical reality (it cannot go to the negative domain). When the mass, volume, energy, etc. become zero, there is no matter; ie, there is 'physically nothing'. That 'physical nothing' means there is the three dimensional space which remains forever without any change. That 'physical nothing' is real; ie, infinite space and infinite time are real. We can say that these remain as the arena which does not change (this has been the earliest or classical concept about space and time).

Regarding 'nothing can become infinite', I follow your third alternative. Here, 'nothing' refers to physical things, and the statement implies that physical things should be finite. Your second alternative is also correct; 'physical nothing' can be infinite (like space and time without matter)

I went through the link that you have given. It is interesting. The net effect is that microwaves were emitted during their experiment. They explain it as particles popping out of vacuum (or field). Obviously, I will propose an alternate explanation. Let us wait till we get the details.

This is the sort of thing I'm looking for. It's the bits that are mumbo jumbo, and why, that I need to be able to get to grips with.

To understand the physical world, you have to start from space and time; here, infinity matters. So any discussion regarding infinity is not just mambo-jumbo. We will just continue.

Now I will ask you a few questions.
1.Can a finite mass have infinite gravity?
2.For the gravitational force to be zero do two finite masses have to remain at infinity?
3. Is the quantum information infinite?

I will answer 'NO' to these questions. What is your opinion.

I guess you are not looking for yes/no answers. If you are I ask for your patience as I have been known to “go on a bit”.

1. If the concept of a singularity is correct, then the answer must be “yes”. However, in the case of a black hole; the matter of which the original star is composed bust be finite, therefore its gravity must be finite. On the basis that nothing finite can become infinite; the idea that a singularity can develop, and that this will develop infinite gravity, must be inaccurate in some way. Furthermore, if gravity is a result of the presence of matter, gravity could be infinite only if matter were infinite. It is difficult to see how matter, in our Universe could be infinite, since, as far as we are aware, the Universe is finite.

This does leave the possibility that infinite matter exists in an infinite cosmos, in which case, presumably, there would be infinite gravity. However, this does seem to differ from the infinite gravity = infinite curvature of spacetime proposed for a singularity.

It looks as though we agree; the answer to Q1 is “no”.

2. Two finite masses at an infinite distance from each other will remain at this infinite distance, however they travel relative to each other. The infinite distance can never become finite. If they are an infinite distance apart, they can never have been at a finite distance, so they cannot be aware of each other, nor can one influence the other. The question might have some relevance in a philosophical context, but physically it makes no sense.

3. I don’t know enough about quantum information to give an off-the-cuff answer to this one. My initial thoughts would go something like this: If quantum information relates only to the Universe, it is finite. On the other hand, if it extends to an infinite cosmos, then it is infinite. Orac will undoubtedly put me right on this, but my feeling is that quantum information might be infinite, but we have no way to provide physical proof of that.

The short answers would, therefore, be: 1. No. 2. N/A. 3. Probably infinite.

The second question is actually related to the first question if viewed at a different angle. When will the force between two finite masses become zero? I think that the force between two finite masses will be equal to zero at a certain finite distance. That means beyond a certain distance there will be no force between them (theoretically also). Or the field should also be finite.

What is 'quantum information'? In classical physics, matter has properties. But, in QM, they refer to it as 'quantum information'. That is, they think that we cannot know 'the properties' at the quantum level; however, there is something that we just do not understand, and so call it 'quantum information'. I think the term is now used as a 'jargon' to indicate that there is something 'sacred' there at the quantum level, which we can never hope to understand.

However, I think the only information that can be present at the quantum level is restricted to 'mass, space and time'. If we think the 'physical something' is finite, then the 'quantum information' contains just 'three bits' of information. With this 'three bits', it should be possible to describe the whole universe.

How could you determine this distance? Wouldn’t the decrease in the force between two finite objects approach zero as a hyperbolic curve approaches a straight line? Only if you accept that the force is actually quantised could you reach zero.

I'm sure Orac will have something to say about the quantum information, (if he is still posting in this thread) and whatever it is it will be more insightful than anything I could say on the subject.

As I recall, your theory includes an infinite "cosmos" (not your term, I know). How do you relate finite quantum information to that?

Presumably there would have to be a difference between the quantum information needed to cope with finite and infinite "somethings", but would the difference be one of kind or just of quantity?

Just ordered a new book Bill S based upon recommendation of Jester from resonnaces. Interesting title let you know how it pans out.

http://www.amazon.com/Infinity-Puzzle-Quantum-Orderly-Universe/dp/0465021441

Everything associated with matter is quantised. So as you have expected, in my opinion, the force is also quantised. The distance, at which the force is zero, depends upon their individual velocities.

'Finite quantum information' relates to 'finite universes' in the infinite cosmos. The infinity of the cosmos is just a quality of the space, which is not quantised and so has no quantum information.

As pointed out earlier, the 'infinite something' is physically 'nothing'. It is not quantised (any quantised entity will be finite) and so does not require any quantum information.

I had a look at The Infinity Puzzle on Amazon a while ago and was not sure about it. I shall be very interested to know what you think.

Finiter, I follow the logic of your finite “something”/infinite “nothing”, and as long as you restrict your concept of infinity to this definition there is no problem. Let’s look a little further, though.

There was never a time when there was “nothing”.
The Universe is finite, so it had an origin.
The cosmos is infinite, so it has always been.
Something finite cannot become infinite; nor vice versa.
The only logical origin for the Universe is the cosmos.
“Nothing” cannot become “something”.
The cosmos must, therefore, be “something”, otherwise there would be no Universe.