#
What is infinity

I don't understand how 2x infinity is infinity not some bigger infinity. If you have a rectangle with one infite dimension, and one finite dimension. Even though the two rectangles one is one half the width of the other, and it would seem as though that would suffice looking at the two rectangles would be a demonstration that the area of the wider rectangle would have twice the area of the smaller. I asked about this and my reasoning turned out not to be correct and I did not understand why. If my understanding is correct they explained that infinity doesn't have the cumulative property or associative property so you can not put in infinity like any other number so its non-algebraic.

techstepgenr8tion

Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005

Age: 41

Gender: Male

Posts: 21,512

Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

It sounds like it's a language game when people say that - ie. infinity is infinite, there's no adding, subrtracting, multiplying, or dividing. That's part of our ongological hangup with it.

The only way I can think of is that if some paramater is infinite, all you can do is multiply by parameters to say, take one infinite paramater, add two, and have three infinite parameters or multiply by three to get six infinite parameters. Infinity seems to mock any attempt at divying it up and to say 'what's two times infinity?' just seems like any such attempted mathematical operation to add/subtract/multiply/divide infinity is done to show that any such operation is really a non-sequitur to begin with.

Evidence, please? Time as we know it is quantitative but not qualitive. There is no literal, precise definition of it.

**Quote:**

You're trying to be dismissive but in the process you're making claims that are non-falsifiable. Nice try, though.

The general relativity says we have space-time as a single 4-D manifold, not separate 'time' and 'universe'. Moreover length and time is relative, and our intuition fails. Are you saying general relativity is not falsifiable or not supported by evidence?

I'm saying no such thing. The big bang theory rests on the hypothesis that the Universe was formed by the expansion of a singularity(a 0-dimensional manifold), into a manifold with at least 4 dimensions. But you are arguing that time does not exist outside of the Universe(and that includes the relativistic description of time as a physical dimension)and you have no evidence for this.

Well according to the General Relativity, physical infinities do indeed exist in the form of Black Holes(which have no been confirmed by observations to be real): The spacetime curvature of a black hole singularity is infinite.

Then what is the origin of the singularity that the Universe came from?

http://blogs.sundaymercury.net/weirdsci ... -holes.jpg

everything enters the black hole and everything exits the white hole

the BB is a white hole

that's the idea....Idk if it is true or false

I'm saying no such thing. The big bang theory rests on the hypothesis that the Universe was formed by the expansion of a singularity(a 0-dimensional manifold), into a manifold with at least 4 dimensions. But you are arguing that time does not exist outside of the Universe(and that includes the relativistic description of time as a physical dimension)and you have no evidence for this.

Can you clarify your objection? I am making a logical deduction from a well established theory. My claim is not inconsistent with the Big Bang Theory, which does not require time before the universe. The singularity is also singularity in time so the concept of time (at least in the sense of Relativity) also breaks down. Your idea of 'expansion' is incorrect. The 'expansion' is not some 'precess' happening in outside time.

If you think it is possible to talk about time without the Universe (which is impossible within the GR framework), it is you who have to provide a falsifiable theory and evidence.

I'm saying no such thing. The big bang theory rests on the hypothesis that the Universe was formed by the expansion of a singularity(a 0-dimensional manifold), into a manifold with at least 4 dimensions. But you are arguing that time does not exist outside of the Universe(and that includes the relativistic description of time as a physical dimension)and you have no evidence for this.

Can you clarify your objection? I am making a logical deduction from a well established theory. My claim is not inconsistent with the Big Bang Theory, which does not require time before the universe. The singularity is also singularity in time so the concept of time (at least in the sense of Relativity) also breaks down. Your idea of 'expansion' is incorrect. The 'expansion' is not some 'precess' happening in outside time.

If you think it is possible to talk about time without the Universe (which is impossible within the GR framework), it is you who have to provide a falsifiable theory and evidence.

Thank you, Stephen Hawking. And yes, Dr Hawkings comments are exactly where you got this argument that talking about the cause of the Big Bang and "before the Universe" is meaningless. But that goes to show that General Relativity alone cannot explain the Big Bang. The current scientific explanation for the Big Bang involves quantum fluctuations of the Higgs Field. It is the concept of imaginary time that provides a better framework for discussing the cause of the Big Bang and what may very well have existed before it(in imaginary time of course!).

Then what is the origin of the singularity that the Universe came from?

http://blogs.sundaymercury.net/weirdsci ... -holes.jpg

everything enters the black hole and everything exits the white hole

the BB is a white hole

that's the idea....Idk if it is true or false

There is no evidence for white holes in terms of observational astronomy and furthermore, white holes violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics as well as T-symmetry. So the assumption that they don't exist is consistent with physical theory too.

Looks like there is some confusion in your reply. Imaginary time is proposed by Hawking. More importantly, imaginary time is NOT 'before' real time. i is not smaller, or greater then 0 (or any real number). And in any case the idea of time as we know breaks down in 'imaginary time'.

Looks like there is some confusion in your reply. Imaginary time is proposed by Hawking. More importantly, imaginary time is NOT 'before' real time. i is not smaller, or greater then 0 (or any real number). And in any case the idea of time as we know breaks down in 'imaginary time'.

The idea of time as we know it is the passage of events(that is, it is a thermodynamic process) and not a physical dimension. But in terms of the cause of the Big Bang and what existed "before the Universe", lemme be clear: I am not actually talking about

*time*, I am talking about

*causality*. Hawking's argument is based entirely on GR which is time-reversal symmetric. And yet, there are microscopic and macroscopic counter examples, like Black Holes, which violate time-reversal symmetry. And now,

evidence has been uncovered, though it's not yet conclusive, of something that existed

**before the Big Bang**. So if this is what is seems to be, then Hawking is WRONG.

techstepgenr8tion

Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005

Age: 41

Gender: Male

Posts: 21,512

Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

Infinite is a description, not a phenomena.

Processes, quantities and systems can all have examples describable as having an infinite quality.

Similar Topics | |
---|---|

Infinity greater tha another infinity? |
11 Feb 2011, 5:37 am |

To infinity and beyond |
03 Feb 2011, 11:00 am |

The Infinity Mirror |
16 Aug 2017, 5:04 am |

Infinity symbol? |
30 Sep 2017, 8:13 pm |