It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Infinity (symbolically represented with ∞) comes from the Latin infinitas or "unboundedness." It refers to several distinct concepts – usually linked to the idea of "without end" – which arise in philosophy, mathematics, and theology.[1]
In mathematics, "infinity" is often used in contexts where it is treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: "an infinite number of terms") but it is a different type of "number" from the real numbers. Infinity is related to limits, aleph numbers, classes in set theory, Dedekind-infinite sets, large cardinals,[2] Russell's paradox, non-standard arithmetic, hyperreal numbers, projective geometry, extended real numbers and the absolute Infinite.
Originally posted by eMachine
Those of you who have replied to this thread with the typical close-minded "everything must fit into boxes" BS are the epitome of why the question of "what is everything" will not be solved by "scientists".
Yes, it's true, the "symbol" is not an equation, but I think this poster is on to something. The scientific community would never see the possibilities of this (no pun intended), because of the fact they are looking for an equation.
[edit on 10-1-2009 by eMachine]
Originally posted by constantwonder
The real problem in quantum mechanics is the measurement problem
The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the unresolved problem of how (or if) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves according to the Schrödinger equation into a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the process under examination. Whatever that "something" may be does not appear to be explained by the basic theory.
Originally posted by JaneFonda
reply to post by muzzleflash
Do you even know what the unified field theory is? ∞ is not unified or a theory and has nothing to do with fields at all.
Originally posted by Pappie54
video.google.com...
If you have not seen this, I recommend it highly. It is a 4 hour presentation but I found it spellbinding.