Theory of Infinity (defined)

[Guest liliangrn]

The following is a post copied from another forum:

 

Hi Mike,

 

You and my professor are like two opposite poles, therefore, it is easier for me to see the middle ground.

 

Now your definitions on infinity are not relevant to the subject. We are discussing black holes and general relativity predicted (before BHs were even found) that spacetime would curve to infinity given there were adequate gravitational forces. Although, now we've found these black holes we can't define this theory because we can't (or won't) define infinity...

 

So we come up with absurd theories....

 

Sorry if I sounded moody in my post, but, I WAS making a valid point. My theory is at least backed up by mathematics and I simply stated to you (and to my professor) that within a BH exists infinite spacetime. Your responses were that BHs are a wormhole or some other-worldly 'Star-Trek' unknown and I'm the one with the problem.

 

What's the difference between infinite spacetime and finite spacetime? (That is besides an interesting looking grid image)

 

Well finite spacetime can be measured by Special Relativity. Infinite spacetime cannot. Finite spacetime by definition has a start and finish point. Infinite spacetime does not.

 

Finite does not equal Infinity.

 

Therefore an infinite/finite spacetime is as absurd as calling a blackhole blue.

 

How does infinite spacetime fit into a blackhole?

 

Well if you can imagine throwing a container into a black hole. Then outside

and inside this container would be infinite spacetime. If I then place a lid on the container the inside would still be infinite spacetime.

 

Finite spacetime has a burnout and therefore at the end of this universe it will implode. Sorry to ruin the ending for you. My professor stated that an electron was also a BH. I guess he was right.

 

I know I'm quite juvinile (Hell I barely even attended High School) at all this but I call a spade a spade and infinite spacetime is exactly as the name suggests.

 

So outside this finite universe is an infinite spacetime. We ARE encased in a bubble and outside that is the largest damn blackhole you ever did see.

 

As for a singularity, at the event horizon you've found your singularity. Spacetime is bent to infinity at this point and to go in any further to find something else is futile.

 

You stated that I needed to use maths (as others did) to assist my theories, but hey, where I'm going there is no maths you can describe. My boyfriend was right when he quoted someone saying 'If you can't explain what your doing in plain english then you are doing something wrong'.

 

Josephine

[Tormod]

Why are you posting this when we are already discussing your theory in the astro/cosmo forum?

[C1ay]

Well if you can imagine throwing a container into a black hole. Then outside

and inside this container would be infinite spacetime. If I then place a lid on the container the inside would still be infinite spacetime.

Would this container have a finite volume? If so, how could it hold an infinite volume of anything? Let's just say for instance that it is a 5 gallon bucket. How are you going to put more than 5 gallons of anything into it?

[Guest liliangrn]

Hi again Clay and Tomrod,

 

I'm sorry I reposted the theory, but when I wrote my original post I wasn' t thinking all that clearly. I think this version is a little easier to read and more simply defined.

 

Clay, I was as confused about infinite spacetime within a defined space, as you are, when I first heard it. But it can be explained thus:

 

If you were out lost in infinite spacetime; where are you? what time is it? how large are you?

Any direction you move you are still infinite spacetime.

 

IF you had an empty container filled with infinite spacetime how much is in there?

What would you be comparing it to?

Your five gallon tub definition only works within a finite space.

Everything is infinite. Within the tub, out of the tub, it doesn't matter.

 

The edge of a black hole is the edge of this finite space. Beyond that maths as a clearly defineable measurement ceases to exist.

 

Josephine

[C1ay]

IF you had an empty container filled with infinite spacetime how much is in there?

Then the container itself must be infinite. I don't believe the universe as we know it is infinite though as it has been measured to be finite. I do believe it is contained in a larger infinite space though.

[Guest liliangrn]

Exactly Clay,

 

An object in infinite spacetime also equals infinity. Good thinking. In this finite space we compare the size of objects in relation to spaces and times based on the fact that they are finite. But in the infinite spacetime.

 

x = 8 / infinity = infinity / 8 = infinity

 

Cool, huh?

[Qfwfq]

8 / infinity = infinity / 8 = infinity

 

Cool, huh?

No, not cool, only wrong.

 

lim(x --> inf)(8/x) = 0

 

lim(x --> inf)(x/8) = inf

[Guest liliangrn]

Infinity is described as bad mathematics. I believe that most physicists would much prefer to zero to infinity. At least then zero can be defined. Let me first state that zero is a rather antiquated notion, because, wherever we look expecting to find nothing, something always rears it's head. Even the much revered singularity remains rather elusive doesn't it? You cannot show me zero space, zero time, zero energy, zero anything, zero nothing or non-existence.

The universe once thought to be a vacuum has now been found to be full of stuff; mass, energy, radiation, waves, force, etc.

 

We can however experience infinity and not merely as a limit. Actual time and space, not in a relative sense, is infinite. Logically the universe could not be derived from nothing.

Infinity as a limit is a rather nice idea if you are into that kind of thing. i.e. defining everything finitely.

 

Physicists keep coming up with mathematical equations, in an attempt, to define BHs. Yet all attempts so far have produced infinite outcomes. (one zero outcome was produced, to my knowledge, but since black holes have mass and gravity this is not overly viable) My theory is not a statement that would cease all research into black holes. It's just a theory that is attempting to explain an undefinable phenomenom. At least I have a theory which is by no means unrealistic. The main problem with my theory is the word 'infinity'. It just seems to protrude bile from the mouths of mathematicians as if I had spoken a '*hush, hush*' dirty word.

 

Remember we came from infinity, we are surrounded by it, you cannot escape infinity and by all means we cannot ignore infinity indefinitely.

 

Josephineeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee... and so on

[Tormod]

These are musings which might seem interesting but they have little scientific value, Josephine. This topic might fit better in the Philosophy of Science forum.

 

Zero is indeed an important and valid concept, and is one of humanity's greatest inventions.

 

And - not all explanations of black holes create infinities. String theory avoids infinites.

 

I also reviewed a book a while back by Ernest Sternglass, "Before the beginning". He does not believe in an initial singularity (ie that there is a singularity at T-0). Review is here:

http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=28091

 

I would also recommend a brand new book by John Barrow, "The Infinite Book" which discusses the history of the concept of inifinity, and also many of the issues and problems it raises in both culture, science, and religion.

[C1ay]

Infinity is described as bad mathematics. I believe that most physicists would much prefer to zero to infinity. At least then zero can be defined. Let me first state that zero is a rather antiquated notion, because, wherever we look expecting to find nothing, something always rears it's head. Even the much revered singularity remains rather elusive doesn't it? You cannot show me zero space, zero time, zero energy, zero anything, zero nothing or non-existence.

The universe once thought to be a vacuum has now been found to be full of stuff; mass, energy, radiation, waves, force, etc.

 

We can however experience infinity and not merely as a limit. Actual time and space, not in a relative sense, is infinite. Logically the universe could not be derived from nothing.

Infinity as a limit is a rather nice idea if you are into that kind of thing. i.e. defining everything finitely.

 

Physicists keep coming up with mathematical equations, in an attempt, to define BHs. Yet all attempts so far have produced infinite outcomes. (one zero outcome was produced, to my knowledge, but since black holes have mass and gravity this is not overly viable) My theory is not a statement that would cease all research into black holes. It's just a theory that is attempting to explain an undefinable phenomenom. At least I have a theory which is by no means unrealistic. The main problem with my theory is the word 'infinity'. It just seems to protrude bile from the mouths of mathematicians as if I had spoken a '*hush, hush*' dirty word.

 

Remember we came from infinity, we are surrounded by it, you cannot escape infinity and by all means we cannot ignore infinity indefinitely.

 

Josephineeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee... and so on

 

I think perhaps you might enjoy reading through the oast Astronomy News and Space News articles here to see what others in the astronomy community think about our universe and black holes.

[Guest liliangrn]

Hi Tomrod and Clay,

 

I wasn't aware that I was using philosophy. I thought I was using logic. But now that I'm aware this sort of discussion is philosophy I will try to refrain from using it. O.K. sorry again. Oh and Clay I wasn't even aware that you had a news section. I guess I didn't look. Now that I've seen it I'll go have a look regularly. It looks really good.

 

The following though is a discussion I'm having on four different forums. It shows where I'm up to on this theory and if anyone would like to add a comment to it I would appreciate it.

 

Hi again FreeAction and Mike,

 

You have stated the funny thing I've found out about my theory (which I have posted on various forums). The fact that my experience is extremely limited was by no means unannounced (by myself). I even made up my own terms like "burnout" because I was unaware of actual terms (which I now no to be where a star exhausts it's nuclear energy - which I have just read that atoms also have this nuclear countdown - is this right? I called it a "burnout" - :) so sue me - generic cola).

 

But in the last month I have found a half-hearted attempt, to a complete lack of attempt, of people, who know better, to interpret my immature explanations. Mike was one of two who couldn't read between the lines at all, but don't worry, one forum wouldn't even lower themselves to even comment despite my repeated attempts (which I found rather strange because, from what I saw, their enjoyment with trashing the ignorant was overwhelming. My stubbourn nature would have been a prime candidate I thought). There were a few people who humored my rantings though.

 

All that aside, perhaps I was getting a little upset and taking things too far. My frustration can be forgiven though given the treatment, I feel at least, I recieved. There isn't an answer to everything experience I'm feeling (like that movie 'pi', have you seen it, where he looks at the sun and goes mad over the number pi). My theory I feel brings up numerous new questions, in my mind, that are even harder to explain than the answers it may or may not produce.

 

From what I've seen spacetime curves at a black hole. (BTW Mike I never stated that spacetime curves back on itself. In my knowledge this would produce a negative number, correct? Few would see this to be an acceptable reasoning, would they? A zero result to the question of spacetime curvature, of black holes, is equally unreasonable isn't it?)

 

So if I can deduce the possibilities that remain: Either spacetime curves infinitely or spacetime is curved to an amount that is so small (or large?) it almost appears infinite.

 

Well I guess it has to be infinity otherwise light couldn't redshift infinitely (right?).

 

In my professors opinion (*see note), if I could hit the singularity at v=c time would be going so slowly but it would still be a value you could calculate. Perhaps 1 second acording to *me* would be equal to 1 billion^n years at the singularity.

 

He thinks that beyond the EH is either nothing or it's not anything of particular importance. I gather he means it doesn't go anywhere spectaular (like a wormhole or lead to a magical path of gold).

 

It's not unrealistic for him to have this opinion because what the hell does infinite spacetime mean? Well this is the point I would like to study. My theory is really basically my opinion. It details my immature theoretic description of what infinite spacetime is.

 

I can work it out with the following reasoning:

 

I'm sure that matter cannot exist there (at least in the same sense we experience it). The matter is converted to energy (i think..). I've just read that gravity is not a force. Rather the 'pull', we experience by gravity if we fall down, is due to spacetime curvature. So the fact that, at the singularity, there is no matter is irrelevant (this was hard for me to understand). Matter density relates to spacetime curvature. So if you squeeze matter into a point where you have maximum possible density, a black hole, spacetime curves to infinity (or a maximum spacetime curvature).

 

Therefore you have infinite gravity, infinite spacetime and infinite energy (or the most energy you can have). But still no 'matter'.

 

Time and space, at this point, does not 'disappear', it's just that the point of refence is infinity. Anything that may, or may not, happen is relavant to infinity so relative viewpoints aren't controlled in the same way they are in this finite spacetime.

 

I don't know guys, which ever way I look at it, with my limited mathematical skills I keep coming up with the same answer.

 

What do you think?

 

Josephine

 

:)

[Tormod]

Hi Tomrod and Clay,

 

I wasn't aware that I was using philosophy. I thought I was using logic. But now that I'm aware this sort of discussion is philosophy I will try to refrain from using it.

 

"Logic" has nothing to do with it - it is the topics you bring up, ie musings on the meaning of infinity in a non-mathematical way. It is perhaps cosmological in nature since you are talking about the universe - more than it is a physics/math discussion.

 

And, btw, my name is not Tomrod.

[Qfwfq]

I wasn't aware that I was using philosophy. I thought I was using logic.

Logic is one of the main branches of philosophy. However I don't find that you are using logic and I have doubts that you are using any other branch of philosophy.

 

Infinity is described as bad mathematics.

None of the mathematicians that I know would say that, neither would any of my friends in theoretical physics.

 

Actually, there are two notions of infinity in math, that I know of. One is in cardinality, the other is in limits.

[C1ay]

Hi Tomrod and Clay,

 

I wasn't aware that I was using philosophy. I thought I was using logic. But now that I'm aware this sort of discussion is philosophy I will try to refrain from using it. O.K. sorry again. Oh and Clay I wasn't even aware that you had a news section. I guess I didn't look. Now that I've seen it I'll go have a look regularly. It looks really good.

 

The following though is a discussion I'm having on four different forums. It shows where I'm up to on this theory and if anyone would like to add a comment to it I would appreciate it.......

 

.........From what I've seen spacetime curves at a black hole. (BTW Mike I never stated that spacetime curves back on itself. In my knowledge this would produce a negative number, correct? Few would see this to be an acceptable reasoning, would they? A zero result to the question of spacetime curvature, of black holes, is equally unreasonable isn't it?)

 

So if I can deduce the possibilities that remain: Either spacetime curves infinitely or spacetime is curved to an amount that is so small (or large?) it almost appears infinite.

 

Well I guess it has to be infinity otherwise light couldn't redshift infinitely (right?).

 

In my professors opinion (*see note), if I could hit the singularity at v=c time would be going so slowly but it would still be a value you could calculate. Perhaps 1 second acording to *me* would be equal to 1 billion^n years at the singularity.

 

He thinks that beyond the EH is either nothing or it's not anything of particular importance. I gather he means it doesn't go anywhere spectaular (like a wormhole or lead to a magical path of gold).

 

It's not unrealistic for him to have this opinion because what the hell does infinite spacetime mean? Well this is the point I would like to study. My theory is really basically my opinion. It details my immature theoretic description of what infinite spacetime is.

 

I can work it out with the following reasoning:

 

I'm sure that matter cannot exist there (at least in the same sense we experience it). The matter is converted to energy (i think..). I've just read that gravity is not a force. Rather the 'pull', we experience by gravity if we fall down, is due to spacetime curvature. So the fact that, at the singularity, there is no matter is irrelevant (this was hard for me to understand). Matter density relates to spacetime curvature. So if you squeeze matter into a point where you have maximum possible density, a black hole, spacetime curves to infinity (or a maximum spacetime curvature).

 

Therefore you have infinite gravity, infinite spacetime and infinite energy (or the most energy you can have). But still no 'matter'.

 

Time and space, at this point, does not 'disappear', it's just that the point of refence is infinity. Anything that may, or may not, happen is relavant to infinity so relative viewpoints aren't controlled in the same way they are in this finite spacetime.

 

I don't know guys, which ever way I look at it, with my limited mathematical skills I keep coming up with the same answer.

 

What do you think?

 

Josephine

 

:)

It's not really MY news section, I'm just one of the most active posters there. I'm glad you've found some material there that interests you.

 

Just because spacetime curves at a blackhole doesn't mean that it has any effect on the universe except in the local region. Blackholes have a finite mass and some think there are limits as to how big they can get. I personally think there is just more space outside our local universe with more of the same occupying it, i.e. stars, galaxies, clusters, blackholes, etc.. I think the expansion of our local universe is driven by the event referred to as the big bang but I'm not particularly convinced as to what astronomical entity it came from. It is theorized that it was a singularity but I'm not convinced that we have correctly deduced what a singularity is or what it's properties would be.

[Guest liliangrn]

Hi guys,

 

I have recieved a lot of information based on My Theory and I need to go through it again to extract the point that I feel a relevant to this subject. It shouldn't take me long. I'll let you know, what I've come up with, as soon as I'm finished.

 

Josephine

[penny_pinch_her]

Hello I am also working on a Theory of infinity, and I was just wondering if you had more than just what you have written on your page. My friend and I are both 19 but we have sufficient evidence as done by other scientists, that our theory cannot be disproven and it solves any universal unknowns. Let me know if you have more to your theory than what is posted, I am quite interested

Thanks

[Guest liliangrn]

Hi Penny, (I hope I can call you Penny).

 

I have my discussions copied together from different forums beside this one. One of the discussions was with a proffesor who's been studying black holes for years. I'm not sure your what your theory is based so I don't know if any of it is releveant.

 

The following is a quote, from my professor, that is the best I have at explaining black holes:

 

"At the central point singularity of a black hole these are the conditions if you take the GR version as gospel

 

1/ The singularity is a terminal point. All motion of free falling

masses stops there.

 

2/ It has finite mass

 

3/ It has infinite density

 

4/ It has negative infinite gravitational potential energy, but only

finite positive mass energy derived from original kinetic energy (a

contradiction according to the basic physics involved)

 

5/ Spacetime is infinitely curved.

 

Now, as for the EH

 

1/ It is a coordinate singularity when viewed "from" infinite distance.

and can be penetrated in Schwarzchild/Minkowski geometry.

 

1a/ It is not from a closer viewpoint except to a body hitting it AT c,

but it's still penetrable.

 

2/ It has no mass. That's all in the middle..

 

3/ Having no mass it has no density. It is only an abstract surface

without physical reality.

 

4/ It has negative finite potential energy but it still won't match up

to the original kinetic energy that went into forming it."

 

I'm going to leave this theory alone until I understand physics on a greater level. I'm sure infinite space time curvature is of some importance to understanding the structure and existence of our universe and, further, what, if anything, is outside this bubble I have described. Few people are willing to even discuss it with me due to, I think, my lack of experience. I've yet to meet anyone who even agrees with me.

 

Have you looked into:

 

Cantor's Concept of Infinity: Implications of Infinity for Contingence.

 

I was directed here. It shows that there are actually many forms of infinity.

Beside that I'm not sure how I can help you.

 

G 2 G I hope you all the best.

 

Josephine