It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# What is your view on infinity? Here's mine

page: 1
3
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:22 AM
Hi ATS,

So i just can't stop to try and understand if our universe is finite or infinite in size. Now saying it would have a fixed size, would be a fairly reasonably assumption. Saying the dead space in which our universe appears to be in is infinite, is just madness.

Alright then, here's something to bend your mind over, as i've bent mine over it a few times:

1. I Think that there is a fixed amount of physical matter in the universe. Matter can't be created out of nothing, it's simply there, or it just isn't. So by that there is a fixed amount of physical matter. I think we could all agree on that, it's logical to assume that right?

2. The universe consists of matter, and the dead void that is used to allow matter to manifest itself in. The vacuüm of pure nothingness. But it's definately something, because we can move around through it, so it's definately part of our universe/instance.

2. Let's say the universe is infinite. Imagine that we went ahead and made 1 very thin string of ALL the physical matter in the universe, and we then stretch it out in a perfect line, one end to another, perfectly straight. So the string is made out of ALL the planets, stars, debree, anything of physical matter in space. We have now taken ALL that exists into the string. Now how long would this very thin string be? Imagine the string to be as thick as a thread of which your sock is made of. In an infinite universe, the string would't even be longer than your keyboard, if you zoom out enough that is. This is a reality that we look at if we say that the universe is infinite. physical matter will take up 0.0000000000 - infinite amount of zero's - 00000,1% of the space available. Space being the dead empty void in which physical matter manifests itself in.

For this reason i cannot accept the universe being infinite, maybe i should, but my mind can't accept it. My logical part of my brain can't even remotely try to understand/accept it.

Does anyone disagree with the example i've written above?

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:40 AM

Originally posted by cyberjedi

1. I think that there is a fixed amount of physical matter in the universe. Matter can't be created out of nothing, it's simply there, or it just isn't. So by that there is a fixed amount of physical matter. I think we could all agree on that, it's logical to assume that right?

You're right, it can't be created out of nothing, but there is no "conservation of matter" in the universe. What there is, however, is the Conservation of Energy - there is a fixed amount of energy in the universe, of which matter is one form (Einstein's principle of Mass-Energy Equivalence: familiarly, E = mc^2).

2. The universe consists of matter, and the dead void that is used to allow matter to manifest itself in. The vacuüm of pure nothingness. But it's definately something, because we can move around through it, so it's definately part of our universe/instance.

Vacuum is most certainly "something" - by definition, it contains some form of energy (even if it is just "zero-point" energy), and also typically contains one or more vector fields (forces, essentially).

2. Let's say the universe is infinite. Imagine that we went ahead and made 1 very thin string of ALL the physical matter in the universe, and we then stretch it out in a perfect line, one end to another, perfectly straight. ... In an infinite universe, the string would't even be longer than your keyboard, if you zoom out enough that is. This is a reality that we look at if we say that the universe is infinite.

If the universe is infinite, then the matter (or, more specifically, the energy) it contains is also infinite, and the resultant line would be infinite.

The only way to get a finite line of matter is to have a finite universe.

Though, I would agree with you... I would consider the universe to be finite. But not for the reason you describe.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:45 AM
I see why this would be hard to wrap arround, I used to believe the universe had to be finite in seize since everything we come in contact with in everyday life if finite in seize and it's boundaries. But how can we say there are boundaries to reality. Imagine if you will there being boundaries to our universe that would imply that it is within something, be it a void, vaccume or maybe some ultimately larger system of proceses that allow for matter to appear in the form of galaxies stars planets humans what have you. This would still imply it is within something much larger than we can comprehend, much like say a ribosome in your bone marrow, imagine it could think for itself for a moment, would it ever be able to comprehend the space we ourselves live in or would it believe we were the entire universe, as it would have no way of knowing what lies outside our bodies and would have no need to, yet there are countless other ribosomes in other people around us. This is just a metaphor. I for one believe this reality is infinite. Whatever you bieve in be it god, multiple "glob like universes" alternate dimensions whatever your current thinking may be there will still never be a boundary to reality. It will never end always progressing in all sizes and scales, even if you follow the conventional "big bang" theory from beginning to end, in the words of terence mckenna the "limit of credulaty", all matter started in a point smaller than an atomic particle and for no reason expanded outward and will excelerate outward faster and faster until atoms are so far apart that the universe is uniformly at absolute zero temperature. Than it is logical to assume these atoms will also be subject to this expansion and will start to expand themselves becoming their own "big bang" and the cycle will continue on, and this is for every atomic particle in the known universe.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:51 AM

Infinity = Nothing.

If infinity were something, it would be finite. The universe is an infinitely insignificant expression of infinity/nothing. Anything can come out of infinity, but anything that does will be finite.

Infinity/nothing is the potential energy of the universe and any other universe or creation.

The universe or anything created is the kinetic energy.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:02 AM
Perhaps infinity is not something going on forever, but instead the inability for the human mind to comprehend the end of what could be considered "infinity". The end is there, but we can't see it. Am I being clear?.....I bet not.

I also think that matter may be created out of nothing. It had to happen at the beginning of the universe, so why can't it still happen? Where did this matter we have today come from? Nothing......

Is it possible that all this may be possible but we lack the comprehension and scientific know-how to explain it?

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:10 AM

Originally posted by sheepslayer247

I also think that matter may be created out of nothing. It had to happen at the beginning of the universe, so why can't it still happen? Where did this matter we have today come from? Nothing......

Barring what happened "before the Big Bang," the matter that exists in the universe today was not created out of nothing. The current model states that the universe began as a region of extremely high zero-point (vacuum) energy, which collapsed, releasing a massive amount of real energy, which was responsible for the near-instantaneous rapid inflation of the early universe. As the universe then expanded and cooled, that energy condensed to form particles, which then, of course, formed matter.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:11 AM

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Perhaps infinity is not something going on forever, but instead the inability for the human mind to comprehend the end of what could be considered "infinity". The end is there, but we can't see it. Am I being clear?.....I bet not.

I also think that matter may be created out of nothing. It had to happen at the beginning of the universe, so why can't it still happen? Where did this matter we have today come from? Nothing......

Is it possible that all this may be possible but we lack the comprehension and scientific know-how to explain it?

If infinity has an end, infinity is not infinity

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:12 AM

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by sheepslayer247

I also think that matter may be created out of nothing. It had to happen at the beginning of the universe, so why can't it still happen? Where did this matter we have today come from? Nothing......

Barring what happened "before the Big Bang," the matter that exists in the universe today was not created out of nothing. The current model states that the universe began as a region of extremely high zero-point (vacuum) energy, which collapsed, releasing a massive amount of real energy, which was responsible for the near-instantaneous rapid inflation of the early universe. As the universe then expanded and cooled, that energy condensed to form particles, which then, of course, formed matter.

Potential energy is infinity/nothing.
Kinetic energy is finity/creation.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:15 AM
I thought I read somewhere that infinity just keeps scaling or something to that effect. So say for example, our universe is in an ocean of other universes, which is all contained in a bubble which is in another ocean. This is completely hypothetical, but I hope you get my point.

Would super-strings be the most basic building block of everything if infinity was true.

You know, when you start thinking about infinity anything becomes possible.

To me, this is the biggest question there is.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:18 AM

Its a doughnut.....

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:21 AM

The two concepts are similar. I wouldn't be surprised if what I described (a part of LCDM Cosmology) is the mathematical model for the concept you describe.
edit on 30-6-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:28 AM

Exactly my point. I said that I may not have been very clear.

I usually don't get into topics like this so forgive me.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:33 AM
I'm constantly finding myself pondering about the infinity of the universe, I'm more often then not coming to the same conclusion, i believe the universe is finate, as you said theres a set amount of energy in the universe, one day that will burn out. I bring into the equation of at the end of our universe, there is another universe, i thin membrane dividing us, which I'm not sure is passable from ours. Sort of like another dimension, similar, if not exact dimension of space and time.
edit on 30-6-2011 by Wolvo because: Apology for the typo's

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:34 AM

Originally posted by CLPrime

The two concepts are similar. I wouldn't be surprised if what I described (a part of LCDM Cosmology) is the mathematical model for the concept you describe.
edit on 30-6-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

Perhaps the collapsing of "zero-point energy" is truly a collapse. How does what is essentially nothing collapse?

Because it is not just nothing. It is infinity. Infinity collapses, nothing can only get bigger. We're stuck in the middle growing outwards in all directions towards nothing and infinity. We'll never get there of course.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:37 AM

Indeed. And, in that way, the vacuum, which we typically consider "empty", is actually the source of all energy/matter, because in its "nothingness" is contained infinite potential energy.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:43 AM

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Because it is not just nothing. It is infinity. Infinity collapses, nothing can only get bigger. We're stuck in the middle growing outwards in all directions towards nothing and infinity. We'll never get there of course.

To quote a high school maths problem.

"If an archer fires an arrow at his enemy, the arrow travels half its distance, half its distance and half again for infinity. The opponent will never be struck"

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:55 AM
+1 + -1 = 0.
This is how you can make something from nothing. If the entire universe were an empty void, in total static equilibrium there is only one way to create a dynamic equilibrium from that. One part gets hotter another colder. You create a thing, and it's perfect opposite which completely nullifies it, so that the sum total of all things is always 0. For every action, an equal and opposite reaction. This is necessitated by the original conditions of the universe, namely 0.

ps. this idea is not uniquely mine, though I have expounded on it.
edit on 30-6-2011 by renegadeloser because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:58 AM

Originally posted by CLPrime

Indeed. And, in that way, the vacuum, which we typically consider "empty", is actually the source of all energy/matter, because in its "nothingness" is contained infinite potential energy.

So the question is, how come when we make a vaccuum, a universe doesn't explode from it?

My theory is that as long as that vacuum is present in space and/or time, it will never reach infinity or nothingness. That vacuum would also have to be away from any wavelength along the electro-magnetic spectrum.

Moreover, I don't think it is within the limits of our abilities to create true infinity/nothing.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Wolvo

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Because it is not just nothing. It is infinity. Infinity collapses, nothing can only get bigger. We're stuck in the middle growing outwards in all directions towards nothing and infinity. We'll never get there of course.

To quote a high school maths problem.

"If an archer fires an arrow at his enemy, the arrow travels half its distance, half its distance and half again for infinity. The opponent will never be struck"

I don't get it

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 11:08 AM

That's a trick problem, because, as the arrow goes half the distance each time, it also only takes half the time to go that distance.
The math, then looks like this:

Assuming a distance of 16 metres, and a velocity of 8 metres per second, we know it will take 2 seconds to travel that distance. But, given the half-distance problem, this becomes

(8 metres / 1 second) + (4 metres / 0.5 seconds) + (2 metres / 0.25 seconds) + (1 metre / 0.125 seconds) + ... + (8/(2^n) metres / 1/(2^n) seconds)

The limit of the sum, [Sigma]((8/(2^n))/(1/(2^n))), as n->infinity is 16/8 = 2.

No matter how you look at it, the answer is 2 seconds.

new topics

top topics

3