[infinityparadox (OP)]

Here my question for this question where is the -1?

Trying to look at the problem from outside in, would love to hear what you think about it.

Since Einstein said time is relative, we know it doesn’t flow evenly everywhere. When a minute passes here, 2 minutes, 30 seconds or any amount of time could have passed somewhere else, even 0. Although it may be difficult to imagine exactly how that happens it isn’t hard to understand the concept.

Time flowing unevenly makes it conceivable that some places in the universe, time doesn’t flow at all. Anything that exists in that space will be everlasting, will always remain the same.

If space and time had a beginning, it would be logical that whatever they came from didn’t have one. This is where some of our minds stop and it may take great effort to accept the concept of something that has no beginning (at least it took me considerable effort, I got a glimpse for just half a second). We can understand no end, it’s difficult to imagine no beginning.  Even harder to imagine somewhere that isn’t a somewhere, space doesn’t exist there. Our thoughts are constrained to space and time in a linear fashion, our languages lack expressions for the concept, it’s totally foreign. Yet, if you say that space and time didn’t exist at one point then where they came from can’t have a beginning or an end since in order to have one, time would have to exist and so would space for time to flow in.

Something that doesn’t have a beginning or end is infinity (or infinite possibilities as some put it), it has always existed, time doesn’t flow on it  and it doesn’t reside in space. Then out of it came the universe. The problem as you will see below is that infinity occupies everything that is, there is literally nowhere to put the universe. 

There are many theories nowadays that question the very reality of our existence. They may be onto something. With infinity, maybe we do exist, but not as much as infinity itself and it stands to reason we would be suspicious of how tangible our reality is. We exist in a paradox. Instate of looking at the origin of the universe from the inside out, this is more of a view from the outside in.

This concept can be expressed in a simple equation. Before space and time came out of infinity there was no space to put space into and there was nowhere for time to flow.

Infinity should not be confused with infinite. Something that is infinite doesn’t have an end. Infinity has no beginning and no end.

If you take something out of infinite, whatever you took doesn’t affect the source that it was taken from, there is still an infinite amount. Doesn’t matter what you take out, it remains the same. For example, if you have an infinite amount of energy, you could take out enough to supply the whole world, but your source will remain the same, infinite. Same goes for infinity. When this universe came out of infinity, infinity remained the same. And since it didn’t change, it isn’t possible for the universe to exist outside of it.


The equation would then be:

∞ - 1 = ∞

Where does the 1 exist on the other side of the equation?

Math says infinity is not a number, it’s undefined. The result though would have to be equal to  infinity or infinity something since infinity can’t change.

The single logical explanation I can think of is the 1 can only be inside of infinity, it can’t be taken out of it, that goes with the above, meaning infinity -1 is still infinity.

This leads to think the universe is growing inside of infinity and it doesn’t matter how much it grows, infinity doesn't change. The universe is in a paradox inside infinity.

In order for the universe to exist, it would have to be shielded from infinity. Without a shield, the universe would just collapse into infinity, it would disappear like it never existed.

Imagine taking a drop of water out of the ocean. If that drop was given an existence and put back into the ocean, there is no way it will keep its identity, it just mixes back with the ocean. In order for the universe to exist, there has to be a barrier that shields it from mixing back into infinity.

This barrier could be the actual constant growing of the universe. Space and time fool us and the universe itself into keeping an identity inside of infinity.
For the barrier, you could say ∞ - 1 = ∞ - 1 at least it’s logical, kind of like a mirror, only not a mirror, like one side hiding in it’s own reflection. From our perspective, from inside the - 1, it would be very hard to glimpse the ∞ since it would appear as a moving target, and somehow it feels like we were looking at it all along. Could it be that the constant movement of space and time is the shield that protects this reality from collapsing back into infinity? It’s like trying to make a hole in water, as long as you keep it spinning you can maintain the hole, as soon as you stop, the hole goes away. Maybe space and time are spinning to maintain a hole inside of infinity so we could exist in it.

[Bill S]

Hi Infinityparadox.  Welcome to TNS, and to the ranks of those who try to think beyond the purely mathematical interpretations of infinity.

Your post echoes many of the lines of thought I have wrestled with for a long time.  There are several points to which I hope to return when time permits, and when others have had a say.

Something that doesn’t have a beginning or end is infinity (or infinite possibilities as some put it), it has always existed, time doesn’t flow on it  and it doesn’t reside in space. Then out of it came the universe. The problem as you will see below is that infinity occupies everything that is, there is literally nowhere to put the universe. 

There are two thoughts I would proffer for your consideration.

1.  If “time doesn’t flow” (i.e. there is no time) in infinity, there can be no change; so how could the Universe, or anything else, “come out” of infinity?
2.  If “infinity occupies everything that is, [and] there is literally nowhere to put the universe”; doesn't it follow that the Universe is still included in infinity?

BTW; good luck with this one.  It’s the subject that earned me my first “crackpot certificate”. 

[infinityparadox (OP)]

Thanks Bill for the warm welcome. So happy there are other people who think along the same lines. If that's what it takes, give me 100 crackpot certificates.

Thank you for pointing out the first issue. The thought didn't cross my mind because infinity isn't in space and time. In this universe we observe that nothing can happen if there is no time. We haven't discovered the properties of infinity yet, it must be a very different set of rules that may allow change.

Yes, it flows that the universe is inside infinity. I'm paranoiac about not being understood, I copied pasted an essay I wrote a few days ago. I should have revised it before posting here since everyone is accustomed to thinking about these things.

One question, did you ever get the impression we've been staring at infinity all along and just don't know how to look at it?

[Bill S]

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=52368.0

JeffreyH started this thread a few years ago.  It might be worth a look when time permits.

[geordief]

Since Einstein said time is relative, we know it doesn’t flow evenly everywhere. When a minute passes here, 2 minutes, 30 seconds or any amount of time could have passed somewhere else, even 0. Although it may be difficult to imagine exactly how that happens it isn’t hard to understand the concept.

I understand that time passes in exactly the same way  everywhere. What you are probably referring to is the observed (and predicted) result that the rate of time as observed  from another moving frame of reference depends on the relative rate of motion between the two frames.

In each individual  frame the normal description (inadequate but perhaps helpful) is that time ticks at one second per second

Unless I have misunderstood and you were aware of (and accounting for) that.

[Bill S]

In each individual frame the normal description (inadequate but perhaps helpful) is that time ticks at one second per second.

If this were not the case, wouldn’t we need some sort of “absolute measure” of time that was independent of all RFs?

BTW. I’ve started reading the thread:  https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=52368.0
I’m not far into it, but I recommend it as having some interesting/informative stuff in it.  Also, Donette (my wife) thinks I should read old threads more often.  She says she has not heard me laugh so much for a long time. 

[geordief]

If this were not the case, wouldn’t we need some sort of “absolute measure” of time that was independent of all RFs?

Not sure .

(I have really had any problem with infinity as a mathematical process and never a number .Not that I am versed with all the "bigger/smaller  infinities" concepts whose validity I have no competence  to question. Nor can I comment on the meanings of infinities appearing in formulas  and what it is that that indicates; I understand there is also  a process called "renormalization" in quantum physics but I know nothing about that )

[Zer0]

Something out of Nothing - Quantum Physics!

[infinityparadox (OP)]

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=52368.0

JeffreyH started this thread a few years ago.  It might be worth a look when time permits.

Read some of it, interesting stuff. It's about geometry though. For me infinity isn't in space so there isn't any geometry. My definition of infinite is something that has a beginning and no end or something that never runs out. Infinity for me means where space and time came from, It has no beginning and no end, completely outside of space and time.

Probably I don't know how to explain properly. I've been thinking about infinite (not infinity) since 6yo. Sometimes I would stay awake half the night running after the edge of the universe, trying to figure out what infinite means. In the beginning it was something that was always growing. I couldn't figure out what it was growing into but had to accept it. My thoughts were always directed towards the end of infinite because well, it had a beginning, a fixed point attaching it to reality that was actually wrongfully ignored. My mind (would suspect most of us) is linear with space and time, everything has a beginning. I kept meditating on infinite in every form I could imagine. Still the question of what the universe is growing into remained. In my 40's I started thinking about the beginning and one day I thought something that doesn't have an end, what if it didn't have a beginning? The representation of the universe in my mind collapsed, that usually means dead end or progress. So there I was chasing the beginning of infinite. If it's ever growing, it has to have a start, but what if something doesn't have a beginning? The universe has a beginning so something beyond the universe. One day I understood it for a split second, that whatever the universe came from doesn't have a  beginning. That's what I call infinity. It's outside of space and time, no beginning, was always there (see, there is no word for it). Guess someone would have to meditate on that to really understand, it's way more than the meaning of the words to really imagine something that was always there.

[infinityparadox (OP)]

understand that time passes in exactly the same way  everywhere. What you are probably referring to is the observed (and predicted) result that the rate of time as observed  from another moving frame of reference depends on the relative rate of motion between the two frames.

You got me a little confused. So for example, if you synchronize 2 atomic clocks, leave one on the ground and send the other in the space shuttle, when it comes back from space will the 2 clocks show the same time?

[geordief]

understand that time passes in exactly the same way  everywhere. What you are probably referring to is the observed (and predicted) result that the rate of time as observed  from another moving frame of reference depends on the relative rate of motion between the two frames.

You got me a little confused. So for example, if you synchronize 2 atomic clocks, leave one on the ground and send the other in the space shuttle, when it comes back from space will the 2 clocks show the same time?

No,certainly not.

I was just attempting to address what may be a popular misconception that time will appear to go slow if one accelerates  to a relativistic speed.

(I am not sure whether it is possible to "slow time" if one uses acceleration or extreme gravitation but I do not think it is either.)

The (real) slowing of time only occurs from the perspective of another moving frame of reference and never from  one's own frame of reference.

Hope that was clear (I am not very skilled in the subject and well prepared to be contradicted by others if necessary)

[Bill S]

I’ve still not read all of the thread, but from what I have seen, so far, one quote stands out as touching on the underlying difficulties that beset discussion.

......better minds than anyone of us conclude that flat space defines an infinite universe. Either way, you seem to have missed my points JD. I think I'll have to agree with Pete about things here. When ever I hear someone use the term: "it seems to me", that usually means they are not bright enough to understand or they simply refuse to consider the facts. Which ever case is true concerning this debate is something we will all have to decide at the personal level.

Whether material space is infinite or whether nothingness is infinite, the fact is, that infinity is inescapable

“….flat space defines an infinite universe”.  Of course it does! Mathematically.   Even I can see that. 

I never use the term “it seems to me”, for personal reasons.  However, from where I look at this debate; the stumbling block appears to be that we are talking about two different interpretations of infinity.  It’s like talking in two different languages.

An analogy might be the question: “is light a wave or a particle”.  The answer might be that it is both, but which you observe depends on what you are measuring; which language you are using.  The real trouble comes when one side refuses to acknowledge that the language of the other side has any meaning.

Unless those of who look for an interpretation of infinity that transcends our current mathematical “range”, are willing to accept that a mathematical interpretation of infinity implies that a flat universe is an infinite universe, we will never get anywhere presenting our arguments to scientists/mathematicians in general. 

Conversely, unless these scientists/mathematicians are willing to risk stepping outside their self-imposed “Sonderlager”  and acknowledging that maths is the best tool we have for the study and understanding of our Universe, but it is not, actually, the Universe; then both sides of the debate are doomed to stalemate.

[infinityparadox (OP)]

Unless those of who look for an interpretation of infinity that transcends our current mathematical “range”, are willing to accept that a mathematical interpretation of infinity implies that a flat universe is an infinite universe, we will never get anywhere presenting our arguments to scientists/mathematicians in general.

Thank you for those wise words.
Infinity in this case doesn't refer to the universe, rather what the universe is growing into.
Everything we see and think is confined in space and time. How can we understand what the universe came from if our minds can't go there? We can't think outside of time and can't even imagine no space. Whatever the universe came from is outside of space and time, that is what I call infinity.

[jfoldbar]

Since Einstein said time is relative, we know it doesn’t flow evenly everywhere. When a minute passes here, 2 minutes, 30 seconds or any amount of time could have passed somewhere else, even 0

this stuff makes my head spin, but i still like it.
so the idea that there could be a space that exists where time is 0, doesnt that mean that 'nothing' can happen? for any action to happen, even on an atomic level, wouldnt time have to pass?


so another thing i wonder, if something is moving faster it feels time slower.  ISS to earth for example.
does that also mean if something is moving slower, it would feel time faster.
is "our measurement of time" based loosly on the speed of sun orbit? or speed of milky way spin? or what?
so lets say for example if we had a way to make the earth orbit the sun slower, so 1 year equalled 1000 days,( forget about the whole gravity sucking us in thing). would we age faster?
if we could slow it down even more, so the milky way didnt spin, would time pass even faster again?
if so, if something in the universe did not move at all, what does that do to time?
i get that the concept of movement in space has to be relative to another object. if we could stop miky way from spinning, would that mayby be measured from a point of the movement of the other galaxys?

i better stop now cause my head hurts.

[yor_on]

No Jfoldbar. Your proper time never change. the 'clocks' you compare it do though so you can, relative those, define yourself to be 'slower' or 'faster' if you like. But you have a lifespan, and according to your 'black box' measurement 'proper time' never deviate. If it did repeatable experiments doesn't exist as 'time rates' for them differ depending on mass, relative motion and elevation from said mass. And without a repeatable experiment the foundations of physics will wobble.

[yor_on]

That's what Einstein probably meant, suggesting that 'time' is a illusion. But looked at locally it's not 'proper time' that becomes a 'illusion'. That one will hold relative your local considerations, the 'illusion' becomes the seamlessness we find looking out, knowing that we all see the same thing. But we don't, the universe you see is also 'observer dependent' meaning that it is defined relative your clock and your ruler. That would be cool if that too was a 'illusion', but it's not.
=

There is one additional difficulty to the idea of a 'variant' 'c'. because 'c' as a constant is what defines 'time dilations' and LorentsFitzGerald contractions'. 'c' was what forced Einstein to introduce them, and it is also the foundation of relativity. Questioning 'c' as a constant leaves physics without a definition.

One can always point out that we don't have a golden standard for what would be 'lowest energy state/time rate', unless? That's actually interesting :)

will have to think about that one.

That as we do define energy states in physics. Also 'lowest energy states', as defined by HUP. Then one just have to decide how one would like to define that in form of 'clocks', globally so or locally defined. Locally defined proper time is invariant, globally defined using this idea of energy states/'clocks' we have to redefine physics as 'clocks' now become 'discrete', as well as 'variant'. Which of course must include 'c' no longer being a constant as it can have different energy states.

[geordief]

One can always point out that we don't have a golden standard for what would be 'lowest energy state/time rate', unless? That's actually interesting

will have to think about that one.

That as we do define energy states in physics. Also 'lowest energy states', as defined by HUP. Then one just have to decide how one would like to define that in form of 'clocks', globally so or locally defined. Locally defined proper time is invariant, globally defined using this idea of energy states/'clocks' we have to redefine physics as 'clocks' now become 'discrete', as well as 'variant'. Which of course must include 'c' no longer being a constant as it can have different energy states.

Would you be happy with "  Objective "time" is descriptive of physical processes and is not a "thing" as such"?

If those physical processes are fundamentally discrete  then so will "time" be.

[jfoldbar]

yor_on
would you mind translating all that for a dumb ass?

[Zer0]

+ 1

🐒

[Bill S]

Only Yor_on can provide an explanation, but, as an exercise, for my own benefit, I’ve tried to say what my understanding is.  If Yor_on then puts me right, that might help others, as well.
 

That's what Einstein probably meant, suggesting that 'time' is a illusion. But looked at locally it's not 'proper time' that becomes a 'illusion'. That one will hold relative your local considerations, the 'illusion' becomes the seamlessness we find looking out, knowing that we all see the same thing. But we don't, the universe you see is also 'observer dependent' meaning that it is defined relative your clock and your ruler. That would be cool if that too was a 'illusion', but it's not.

Proper time is not an illusion, and when considered locally, there is no apparent illusion.  If there is an illusion, it is that we might think that our perception of time holds good for all other observers, irrespective of differences of speed, gravity etc, which is not the case.

There is one additional difficulty to the idea of a 'variant' 'c'. because 'c' as a constant is what defines 'time dilations' and LorentsFitzGerald contractions'. 'c' was what forced Einstein to introduce them, and it is also the foundation of relativity. Questioning 'c' as a constant leaves physics without a definition.

If one questions time dilation etc. one has also to question an invariant “c”.  Doing this would leave physics in a bit of a mess.

One can always point out that we don't have a golden standard for what would be 'lowest energy state/time rate', unless? That's actually interesting

Not clear as to where this one’s going.

will have to think about that one.

Possibly you_on isn’t, either. 

That as we do define energy states in physics. Also 'lowest energy states', as defined by HUP. Then one just have to decide how one would like to define that in form of 'clocks', globally so or locally defined. Locally defined proper time is invariant, globally defined using this idea of energy states/'clocks' we have to redefine physics as 'clocks' now become 'discrete', as well as 'variant'. Which of course must include 'c' no longer being a constant as it can have different energy states.

]

Help!