Infinity

[Telephone]

On the question of infinite matter.

....if the nature of existence is such that matter exists, then that means that this same nature of existence must apply in other places, not just at one specific point.

You state this without any explanation, Could you expand on this ?
Why is this 'nature of existence' universal and not just local ?

Why does matter existing in one location force it to exist elsewhere ?

And because other places are infinite, that means that matter must be infinite.

You also state this without any explanation ?

Why if space is infinite (which it may or may not be) then why does it follow that matter must be infinite ?

Are you saying you are going to wager that a coin tossed an infinite number of times will never land tails? I'll take that bet

Let's not drift from the matter (sorry about the pun!) at hand, a coin toss is hardly a worthwhile representative of the profundity and complexity of existence, nor do applying 'odds' add clarity.

And, yes, it is possible to engage a random (pseudo-random?) 50/50 chance system an infinite amount of times and produce a 'tail' an infinite amount of times, however it is unlikely.

You seem to be approaching profound questions that have vexed the minds of mankind for its history from the least productive angle, that is you have come to it armed with many commonsensical preconceptions, the way to get answers is to approach this subject with questions not with answers.

 

[relaxeus]

I'm just saying that its possible, not necessarily true or false. I just thought that your OP made an unjustifiably strong claim, that we "would" run into an identical universe. Basically, just because X can happen doesn't mean X will happen, even with infinite repetition.

It must happen. Say there were only a limited numbers of coin tosses, like say something completely ridiculous like 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and for some odd reason it was not once heads. But if you repeated that same sequence infinitely, then it must sooner or later turn up heads. With infinite time and space every chance must be exhausted. Saying there is a chance it wouldn't, IMO, would be trying to break a fundamental law of existence.

This is the assumption (in bold) that I was trying to point out. If matter is infinitely divisible (why not?) then you can have infinite amounts of it and never get all of the combinations.

I'm gonna stick with Stephen Hawking on this one. Here is what Hawking says, taken from "the universe in a nutshell".

"The work on atomic physics in the first thirty years of the century took our understanding down to lengths of a millionth of a millimeter. Then we discovered that protons and neutrons are made of even smaller particles called quarks.
Our recent research on nuclear and high-energy physics has taken us to length scales that are smaller by a further factor of a billion. It might seem that we could go on forever, discovering structures on smaller and smaller length scales. However, there is a limit to this series, as there is to the series of Russian dolls within Russian dolls.
Eventually, one gets down to a smallest doll, which can't be taken apart any more. In physics, the smallest doll is called the Planck length. To probe to shorter distances would require particles of such high energy that they would be inside black holes. We don't know exactly what the fundamental Planck length is, but it might be as small as a millimeter divided by a hundred thousand billion billion billion. We are not about to build particle accelerators that can probe to distances that small. They would have to be larger than the solar system, and they are not likely to be approved in the present financial climate."

I don't know a whole lot about physics, but I think time is a lot more than just an idea. You need time to get velocity, or any other rate of change, etc.

It helps us understand things, like calculations, and how formations of matter change relative to what the last formation was. But in itself, time doesn't really exist. You can't hold it or see it. It isn't made of anything. It's non-existant. Time is just something we thought up to help us understand things.

What is this "nature of existence" that you are talking about? Can you clarify?

It's just a term I use to describe, well, the nature of existence. Why things are the way they are. Matter exists because of it. It simply is the way it is because that is the nature of existence. Just like gravity is natural in our universe, so also the existence of matter is natural in existence. I am using the term existence here as the ultimate reality and universes as something smaller in the grand picture of all things lol.

 

[relaxeus]

Sure, except I'm not sure that I get what you mean about countless universes. If this universe is infinite, you'd never leave it.

I believe there are an infinite number of universes. No, don't ask for experimental date proving this. To me, though, it seems impossible that there couldn't be an infinite number of universes. This is because I believe there can only be 2 possibilities for existence.: either there is nothing or there is inifinty. We know we exist, so nothing isn't how it is. Infinity must be the way it is.

There might be enough possibilities for events that you could fill the entire universe with different events. In fact you could for sure. As a simple example let's say there's an event in which I program a robot to write a number. Let's even restrict ourselves to integers. Since we have infinite integers we could have infinite robots all writing different numbers. And that's limiting ourselves to a very small perspective.

It's impossible to not have certain sequences repeat, because matter is finite (but occurs infinitly) and so only has a finite number of formations. In fact, in a reality of infinite space and time, every sequence must repeat infinitly, no matter how complex it is.

 

[Soul Searcher]

If there were an infinite number of universes then it is logical that there would be an infinite number of identical universes as well as an infinite number of differences.

However we have no real evidence that there are any other universes nor do we have any real evidence that this universe is or is not infinite. In fact we do not have any real evidence that any inifite object of any kind exists.

Basically we are just making assumptions based on assumptions. We do nto know the answers and if the universe is infinite or there is a infinite number of universes we will never know this for sure simply because we could search forever and not find the boundries.

So in my way of thinking it may be possible to one day prove that the universe is not infinite and or prove that there are no others or limited number of others. but infinitey can never be proven.

 

[Telephone]

It must happen.

Can you explain why you feel it must ?

Say there were only a limited numbers of coin tosses, like say something completely ridiculous like 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and for some odd reason it was not once heads. But if you repeated that same sequence infinitely, then it must sooner or later turn up heads.

This is not so.

To continue tossing a coin will always hold hope that a 'head' eventually appear but will not guarantee it.

This is the kind of thinking that has people make predictions about next weeks lottery results based on past results or presuming that the sequence:

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6

is less likely to come up than

44 - 16 - 7 - 2 - 42 - 21.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I believe there are an infinite number of universes. No, don't ask for experimental date proving this. To me, though, it seems impossible that there couldn't be an infinite number of universes. This is because I believe there can only be 2 possibilities for existence.: either there is nothing or there is inifinty. We know we exist, so nothing isn't how it is. Infinity must be the way it is.



It's impossible to not have certain sequences repeat, because matter is finite (but occurs infinitly) and so only has a finite number of formations. In fact, in a reality of infinite space and time, every sequence must repeat infinitly, no matter how complex it is.

I have a feeling that no matter what I say you are going to reply with another variation of "Infinity=Everything!" But that's just not how infinity works. It's that kind of thinking that leads to mistakes like assuming that every infinite summation must have an infinite result.

Actually, perhaps it is not so much a misunderstanding of infinity, but of continuity. Or maybe of probability.

After all probability 1 doesn't necessarily mean something will occur and probability 0 doesn't necessarily mean that something won't occur.

 

[relaxeus]

Seems that I have reached the end of my current arguments. I think I've defended every part of what I've said so I'm gonna stop it at that. Some of you think that there is no way of knowing whether infinity exists or not. Likewise, I don't think it can be proven either, atleast not in our lifetimes. I believe, however, that there can be no other alternative - infinity is the only possibility. I also believe that every possible formation of finite matter must occur an infinte number of times. I have true faith in it

At the most basic level of this discussion, here is what I have. There can either be nothing, or there must be infinity. Existence can't be finite. I don't think it's possible. It simply doesn't make sense. IT CAN'T BE!

 

[relaxeus]

I have a feeling that no matter what I say you are going to reply with another variation of "Infinity=Everything!" But that's just not how infinity works.

Yes, thats how infinity works!

 

[relaxeus]

This is not so.

Yes it is. The way you see it is from a one sequence perspective, whereas I see it from an infinite sequence perspective. A universe in which every single coin toss always landed tails must exist. Likewise, there must be a universe in which every single coin tossed landed heads. Both these possibilities must exist, as well as every other possibility.

 

[JonF]

i) - I don't understand what you mean.

basically that infinitely many universe have no mater, while a finite amount of universes have mater.

ii) - countable infinite? That doesn't make sense to me.

Countable infinite basically is a infinite that can have some sort of progressive ordering on it. For example the set of natural numbers, 1,2,3,4,5… or the Integers …-1,0,1…. Unlike the Real numbers.

iii) - I dont think this is realistic because if there can be differences in formation of universes then that means that all the possible differences would be infinite through infinite space.

just because there are infinitely many universes who is to say they all have to have radically different formations? Couldn’t each of these universes (except ours) have a single planet that only differs in size? Since there are infinitely many different sizes, there could be infinitely many universe like this.

On the other hand, many scientists, such as Stephen Hawking, believe in all possibilities. Here is what hawkings thinks on it, taken from "the universe in a nutshell". It seems vague to me though because I lack the basics and/or advanced levels of physics knowledge.

Here it is:

hawkings synthesis is based on the probabilistic view of quantum mechanics. Which is still both highly debated, and not well understood yet.

 

[JonF]

Yes, thats how infinity works!

Not at all. if we add from "1 to infinity (whole numbers)" of this sum 1/n^2. It won't go to infinity. It actaully = some real number. This is even how we define some numbers, e for example:

Another case, if we have a set of infinite numbers by your argument we would have them all. But isn't the set of even numbers infinite? I don't see 3 in there.

 

[JonF]

Yes it is. The way you see it is from a one sequence perspective, whereas I see it from an infinite sequence perspective. A universe in which every single coin toss always landed tails must exist. Likewise, there must be a universe in which every single coin tossed landed heads. Both these possibilities must exist, as well as every other possibility.

Why MUST it exist. It could exist i’ll grant you. But MUST is way too strong. You’re not even claiming it does exist (actuality) but that it needs to necessarily exist.

Also we aren't looking at infinity from a sequential standpoint but from a set theoretic standpoint. Which so in as far as I know is the only well defined use of infinity that relates to your claims. In my first post I gave several links that will help explain the error in your reasoning.

 

[relaxeus]

Why MUST it exist. It could exist i’ll grant you. But MUST is way too strong.

I think what you are saying is that one possible formation would never occur. That would make that possible formation impossible... which, of course, we know is not the case. It is possible, so must occur! This is where I believe your argument breaks down.

Also we aren't looking at infinity from a sequential standpoint but from a set theoretic standpoint.

Maybe you are looking at it from a set theoretic standpoint. I don't even know what that means lol. I'm looking at it from the only standpoint I know, that infinite is never-ending.

 

[bob135]

It must happen. Say there were only a limited numbers of coin tosses, like say something completely ridiculous like 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and for some odd reason it was not once heads. But if you repeated that same sequence infinitely, then it must sooner or later turn up heads. With infinite time and space every chance must be exhausted. Saying there is a chance it wouldn't, IMO, would be trying to break a fundamental law of existence.

Say you graph (1/2)^N as N approaches infinite. You are claiming that at some point this graph would touch 0 (sooner or later)? Maybe someone who knows about limits can explain this?

I'm gonna stick with Stephen Hawking on this one. Here is what Hawking says, taken from "the universe in a nutshell".

"The work on atomic physics in the first thirty years of the century took our understanding down to lengths of a millionth of a millimeter. Then we discovered that protons and neutrons are made of even smaller particles called quarks.
Our recent research on nuclear and high-energy physics has taken us to length scales that are smaller by a further factor of a billion. It might seem that we could go on forever, discovering structures on smaller and smaller length scales. However, there is a limit to this series, as there is to the series of Russian dolls within Russian dolls.
Eventually, one gets down to a smallest doll, which can't be taken apart any more. In physics, the smallest doll is called the Planck length. To probe to shorter distances would require particles of such high energy that they would be inside black holes. We don't know exactly what the fundamental Planck length is, but it might be as small as a millimeter divided by a hundred thousand billion billion billion. We are not about to build particle accelerators that can probe to distances that small. They would have to be larger than the solar system, and they are not likely to be approved in the present financial climate."

Well I guess I certainly don't have the scientific knowledge to legitimately disagree with Hawking, but I don't think his point validates your necessary identical universe argument.
From Wikipedia on Planck length:
"This thought experiment draws on both general relativity and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. These two theories combined imply that it is impossible to measure position to a precision less than the Planck length. Hence in any theory of quantum gravity combining general relativity and quantum mechanics, traditional notions of space and time will break down at distances shorter than the Planck length or times shorter than the Planck time."

This only means that every distance measurement we make will have an error margin of at least the Planck length. It says nothing about the underlying mechanism. There could be dolls within dolls forever, they are just impossible to ever measure. So I don't think you can conclude that there are a fininte number of arrangements. In fact, if we found a universe that we thought was identical, we could never verify it because of this, since your measurement would always have error.

It helps us understand things, like calculations, and how formations of matter change relative to what the last formation was. But in itself, time doesn't really exist. You can't hold it or see it. It isn't made of anything. It's non-existant. Time is just something we thought up to help us understand things.

Do you have any scientific basis for this claim? I would certainly agree that it helps you understand the world, but so do things you can hold, like mass etc. But we can observe differences in time and time-related phenomena, like time dilation. You can't hold or see gravity or radiation, you can only detect it. I think its the same with time.

It's just a term I use to describe, well, the nature of existence. Why things are the way they are. Matter exists because of it. It simply is the way it is because that is the nature of existence. Just like gravity is natural in our universe, so also the existence of matter is natural in existence. I am using the term existence here as the ultimate reality and universes as something smaller in the grand picture of all things lol.

Matter exists because of the nature of existence? I thought matter existed because of the big bang. Of course, beyond that I get a little fuzzy. I think gravity is still somewhat of a mystery. As far as I know they haven't found a gravity particle, and for some reason gravity is a lot weaker that other forces in the universe, like electrostatic forces.

 

[relaxeus]

But we can observe differences in time and time-related phenomena, like time dilation. You can't hold or see gravity or radiation, you can only detect it. I think its the same with time.

No, I disagree. You can observe different formations of matter as they change, but time does not really exist. It helps with calculations and all that, but in itself it doesn't exist as anything real.

Matter exists because of the nature of existence? I thought matter existed because of the big bang.

The big bang is also part of the nature of existence. Anything that exists and how it works is because of the nature of existence. It's simply a term I use to help me understand thigns better, I highly doubt its an official term.

 

[bob135]

No, I disagree. You can observe different formations of matter as they change, but time does not really exist. It helps with calculations and all that, but in itself it doesn't exist as anything real.

So time doesn't exist, but we can observe change? You'll have to explain yourself more here. I don't see how you can deny the existence of something whose effects are testable, verifiable, etc.

Also, what about my other points?

 

[relaxeus]

So time doesn't exist, but we can observe change? You'll have to explain yourself more here. I don't see how you can deny the existence of something whose effects are testable, verifiable, etc.

The changing formation of matter is not due to the effects of time, it is due to the nature of matter.

Also, what about my other points?

Your first point was some advanced mathematical equation that I have no idea about.

Your second point was trying to counter argue hawkings. I'll leave it to him to answer you considering I only know the bare basics and am not ready to defend his claims with detailed scientific explanations.

 

[mikenet2006]

Actually even the best telescopes can only see about 13.5 - 14 billion light years far. We must remember that the light from the galaxies we see at that distance has taken 13.5 - 14 billion years to arrive to the Earth - there's nothing to be seen beyond that, because to see it we would effectively have to look into the past beyond the big bang. We'll only be able to see further than that as time passes and the universe that can be observed expands.

Ohhh! I see what you mean by thinning of the galexies being related to the fact that we got to the point where we were seeing so far out with hubble that it would require us to be phsicaly closer to the direction we wanted to view to see any further out.

So this means the more powerful telescopes on the drawing board today will actually not see much further out than hubble at all, but will see the things within the current visible universe better and with less glare so we can directly view planets outside our solar system?

"" I saw a little about a dual lens telescope that looks like a pair of binoculars that will see planets orbiting other stars without the blinding glare you get with a single lens telescope while aiming it near a distant star """

This should be in construction by now because the special I saw on this is now five years old. I havent heard much on it lately though.

However I do believe it is possible to see further out than we are despite this realization.

That would strictly depend on whats beyond what we are currently seeing today though. To be visible it couldnt be connected to our set of galixies. It would have to be part of an independent group of galixies that were created by a big bang of there own, but this big bang would have had to occured ages before ours to alow the light to travel in this direction long enough to be visible from here.

in a sense maybe space has a record of all ancient universes that formed long before ours, just waiting to be viewed. In the form of the light they produced when they exsisted still remaining and traviling outward from there point of origin.

Put another way lets think of a radar bekon sending out signals in all directions. Just like a light source sends out light in all directions. If you destroy the radar bekon itself it will obviously stop transmiting, but what is sent is sent and will continue to travel even if the source is destroyed. Same with sound, and same with light.

Even if everying we view """independent of our visible universe of course"""" is no longer there, if it happened long enough ago it should be visible given we can design a telescope that can see perhaps hundreds of times further than hubble.

What do you think?

Very wierd and complex science indeed

 

[birdan]

Thanks for the link..interesting and good to know. I still have a major problem with them asserting that they can accurately measure the distance to these stars. As in star A is 300 light years away, Star B is 1000 light years away.

Problem.. even if thier method is 100% accurate they are actually measuring the distance that star A was 300 years ago and star B 1000 years ago. Since they also say these stars are always moving we really have no idea how far away they are now. See the problem? When they say it is x distance away they are misleading anyone who listens as what they are actually meaning is it was x distance y number of years ago according to our estimations.

There is no misleading going on by astronomers. When astronomers looks at a galaxy 100 light years away, they know they are seeing it as it looked 100 years ago. The further away a star or galaxy is, the further back in time we are looking. It seems it is more a misunderstanding on your part than astronomers misleading anyone.

As for the red and blue light shift considering that the earth is in constant motion at a pretty good rate of speed both rotating and orbiting the sun then even a stationary object may appear to be moving. Depending on an objects path and speed it may even appear to be moving closer to us at one time of year and farther away at another. However if an object on the plane of earths orbit is moving away at a speed high enough to not appear as moving closer at some point in our orbit that would indicate that it is or at least was moving farther away at a high rate of speed making thier estimation off by quite a bit.

As for red and blue shifting of light, this phenomena is readily observed in laboratory experiments, and these experiments are used to calibrate (against time) the red shifts observed via telescopes. The motion of the earth around the sun is accounted for, and is also used as both a calibration tool and for parellax triangulation calculation of distances for nearby stars. The observations are indeed accurate to within a tenth of a light year, and this is not really a disputable point, since multiple methods are used for calculating distances and they all agree.

There really is no misleading going on, nor is there wild speculation or guesses about the distances of observed galaxies. The only basic assumption being made by astronomers is that the laws of physics we observe here on earth are applicable throughout the universe. Given that assumption, the observations are solid and accurate.

 

[relaxeus]

There is no misleading going on by astronomers. When astronomers looks at a galaxy 100 light years away, they know they are seeing it as it looked 100 years ago. The further away a star or galaxy is, the further back in time we are looking. It seems it is more a misunderstanding on your part than astronomers misleading anyone.

The closest galaxy is thought to be Canis Major, which is about 25,000 light years from us. Thats even closer than our sun is to the center of our own galaxy.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1202/p25s01-stss.html

Galaxies are extremely far away from us. In 2004, the furthest galaxy known was Abell 1835 IR1916, at 13.2
billion light years away.

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/record_furthest_galaxy_broken.html?132004

Galaxies that are extremely far away, such as Abell, might possibly have changed direction, from expanding to coming closer to the center of our universe. If Abell had changed course back to the center of our universe, say, 10 billion years ago, we would not know for another 3.2 billion years. Thats why its difficult to say for certain about what is going on - because there is such a great lag between the light we receive and what is actually going on at this point in time in the universe.