INFINITY

socratus

socratus
Dec 10, 2008
1,036
9
38
Israel
www.worldnpa.org
INFINITY
Infinity appears in many equations.
Examples:
1-For light at constant speed (c) in vacuum, time is "frozen" (eternal situation).
2-When the Schrodinger (Ψ) wave - function ''collapses" the situation is infinite/eternal.
3-Beyond the event horizon of a black hole, time will stop (eternal situation)
But there is a scientific motto: "If you get infinity (∞) in an equation it's usually a sign that you've made a mistake".
Nature doesn't make mistakes.
Mistakes are made by those who, instead of understanding "what infinity is", avoid the concept of "infinity".
“Nature does nothing uselessly.” /Aristotle/
 

Attachments

  • Infinity- ∞-R.jpg
    Infinity- ∞-R.jpg
    65 KB · Views: 1

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,207
733
113
Time does not stop beyond the event horizon of a black hole. Time and space switch 'roles' but time still moves.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
9,814
288
83
Regina, SK
You die horribly, torn apart by the gravitational gradient. That’s what *you* would experience. To a more distant observer you’d appear to hover at the event horizon indefinitely because all signals from there are infinitely red shifted and time has stopped, no signals recording what’s really happened to you can reach the observer so stasis is what will be seen.
At least that’s what the physicists claim the calculations indicate. Needless to say, it’s never been witnessed.
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,207
733
113
You die horribly, torn apart by the gravitational gradient. That’s what *you* would experience. To a more distant observer you’d appear to hover at the event horizon indefinitely because all signals from there are infinitely red shifted and time has stopped, no signals recording what’s really happened to you can reach the observer so stasis is what will be seen.
At least that’s what the physicists claim the calculations indicate. Needless to say, it’s never been witnessed.
I mostly agreee, but there's a fair bit of question as to what would happen to you inside the hole. I've heard many suggest you'd be fine until you reached the center, where you'd either get compressed by the sigularity or torn apart as you suggest if the black hole has spin or charge (which all the ones we've found do). But as you fall to the center you might not actually die. But any direction you accellerate in leads to the center - there is only one direction anymore and that's towards the center of the black hole. They suggest looking back out you would see a strip of compressed light that would represent all time up to the point you entered. so you'd be able to 'see' the past.

As you say tho - at this point largely theoretical :LOL
 

socratus

socratus
Dec 10, 2008
1,036
9
38
Israel
www.worldnpa.org
There is only one "thing" that can be understood as infinite/eternal.
And it is the cosmic vacuum that contains billions of galaxies,
various kinds of quantum particles (virtual, string, anti-particles, etc.),
dark matter, black holes, wormholes, . . . and everything else.
These "everythings" are discrete /relative / temporal.
 

Attachments

  • Vacuum-cotains-all-of-being.jpg
    Vacuum-cotains-all-of-being.jpg
    8.3 KB · Views: 2

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,207
733
113
Sigh. You don't understand ANY of this, do you Socratus?

and nobody has believed that the "vaccume" is a "vaccume" or that it's likely to be eternal for a long time.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
9,814
288
83
Regina, SK
There is only one "thing" that can be understood as infinite/eternal.
And it is the cosmic vacuum…
You can say that after claiming infinity appears in many equations? It doesn’t really, it’s a concept, not a number or a value, you can’t calculate with it though it has proven useful in set theory. And the examples you offered in the OP are not instances of it anyway.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
9,814
288
83
Regina, SK
There are different sizes of infinity, in fact there’s an infinite number of them, as Georg Cantor showed. There’s an infinite number of integers, for instance, which Cantor called aleph null. Between any two integers is an infinity of rational numbers, that is, numbers that can be expressed as a ratio of two integers. That’s also aleph null, the rational numbers can be listed and put into one to one correspondence with the integers, what the math folks call countable infinity. There’s an infinity of irrational numbers there too though, and they’re not countable, so that’s a different order of infinity, which you can think of as the number of points on a line segment. That’s aleph one. Aleph two is the number of points, lines, and subsets of points and lines, in a plane, loosely speaking each order of infinity is infinitely times the size of the lower numbered one. And there is no largest one, Cantor showed that no matter how big an infinity you’re considering, it’s always possible to construct a larger one.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
50,504
3,985
113
Washington DC
Fighting ignorance since 1972. It’s proven to be a bigger task than I thought.
Here's a joke to get you through the day. . .

Heisenberg and Schroedinger are out for a drive when they're pulled over by a cop. The cop comes up to the car and says "You were going 56 mph in a 35 zone!" Heisenberg answers "Great! Now I'm lost!"

Then the cop wants to look in the trunk and Heisenberg pops it for him. The cop asks "Do you know there's a dead cat in your trunk?" Schroedinger snaps "We do now, asshole!"

Far as I'm concerned, we may not know about Schroedinger's cat, but this parrot is dead!
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
9,814
288
83
Regina, SK
A pity Schroedinger didn’t use a parrot in his thought experiment, or Cleese didn’t use a cat in that famous sketch. Symmetry is a big deal in physics, such symmetry involving science and clowning would have pleased me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tecumsehsbones

socratus

socratus
Dec 10, 2008
1,036
9
38
Israel
www.worldnpa.org
Infinite simplification is an apt description of most of this board.
‘'The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion, is the basic problem now before physics.
Really, if you can’t correctly describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex?'' / Paul Dirac /
 

Attachments

  • Simple-Weinberg.jpg
    Simple-Weinberg.jpg
    70.4 KB · Views: 0
  • Simple-Wilczek.jpg
    Simple-Wilczek.jpg
    12 KB · Views: 0