[Jimbee (OP)]

I was wondering. Can anything physically literally go onto into infinity?

I know hypothetically things can. The number line goes onto into infinity in both directions. And on a line, between points A and B, there are an infinite number of points. But that's not what I am talking about.

Also, I was wondering. We live in a universe. But there is a bigger multiverse, isn't there, of many universes. Is the process of universes going in and out of existence, infinite and eternal?

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

I was wondering. Can anything physically literally go onto into infinity?

    Maybe, although it's harder to see or imagine if you're thinking of something having infinite length or dimensions.   The universe might be like that, we don't know.

   However, you can more easily imagine situations where an infinite number of things can happen within a finite amount of space  (or time).
   Example:    Have a race between a tortoise and a hare.     The tortoise moves at half the speed of the hare but let the tortoise have a head start,  let it start half way up to the finish line.
    You should be able to do the calculation:      Time taken to reach the finish line   =   Distance travelled / Speed.
The tortoise had half the speed but also they only half the distance to cover.  So both the tortoise and the hare will cross the finish line at the same time.   More importantly that will be some finite amount of time.
   Now just consider how many times the distance between the tortoise and the hare has been halved.   At the start of the race   the distance between them  was   L/2    (with  L being the length from the hare's start line to the finish line),    allow a bit of time to pass and both of them move a bit but the hare is faster so it will close the distance between them.    At some time the distance between them would only be L/4,  at a later time it would only be L/8,  a later time the distance would be L/16    ..... etc..etc....        You can keep on identifying moments of time where the the distance between tortoise and hare has been halved.
    Once the tortoise and hare actually do reach the finish line (which they will do together and in finite time), the distance between them is precisely 0,    so the distance between them does seem to have been halved an infinite number of times.   The situation hopefully seems fairly concrete or realistic to you, i.e. it really does seem that an infinite number of events (the halving of distance between them) can happen.   More importantly this does seem to happen within a finite total amount of time and space (you do not need an infinite length race course or an infinite time to pass  etc.)

    There are several real world situations where it seems that an infinite number of things can happen within a finite amount of time or a finite amount of space.

But there is a bigger multiverse, isn't there, of many universes.

    Maybe.   There are theories involving "many worlds" or many universes.   How much time or discussion did you want?    There's no agreement on whether there is a multi-verse.

Best Wishes.

[Zer0]

I was wondering. Can anything physically literally go onto into infinity?

In my ill informed personal opinion...
No.

Infinity perhaps might be a Mathematical construct having no basis in our Current understanding of Reality.

There is thou a Fascinating thread in ' New Theories ' section which tries to explore n go deeper into the Subject.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.1050

ps - Hoping you would be Interested in views & beliefs that are just a lil bit Different.

[alancalverd]

I'm afraid the answer is yes.

If you rotate a hyperbola x² - y² = 1 around the y axis, you form a body with finite volume but infinite surface area, so you can paint an infinite surface by pouring in a finite can of paint, but not by spraying or brushing it.

Economists make their living by talking about the can of paint and ignoring the brush.

[paul cotter]

Not getting that one Alan. If I rotate on the y axis I get an open structure that resembles a convergent/divergent nozzle. If I rotate about the x axis I get two volumes but with defined volumes and surface area. Am I missing something?, I thought the brain fog that afflicted me a couple of weeks ago had dissipated. PS I intend to return to our conversation re government systems.

[alancalverd]

On reflection, you don't rotate about the y axis but take one half of the hyperbola and rotate it about one asymptote - my apologies!

[cpu68]

But there is a bigger multiverse, isn't there, of many universes. Is the process of universes going in and out of existence, infinite and eternal?

The number of universes may be finite, though probably very large.

[alancalverd]

The number of universes may be finite, though probably very large.

At any instant, probably. But Hawking's thesis "Black Holes and Baby Universes" suggests that there may be an infinite process of swallowing and regurgitation, more of a Hindu universe than a JudaeoChristian one with a start point and a creator.

[paul cotter]

How about infinite stupidity? That definitely exists but I do accept that it is not a tangible concept like, say, infinite ball bearings or infinite cups of coffee(real coffee-Alan).

[alancalverd]

Semi-infinite stupidity definitely exists. It's a uniquely human characteristic so it can't be more than 500,000 years old but there seems to be no end to its length or depth.

What is really surprising is how stupid people assume that others are more stupid. In every TV program I see about prehistoric  structures like Stonehenge, someone asserts that it was built by people who were better surveyors, miners, freight transporters, masons, astronomers, architects and engineers than their descendants, but were just as superstitious as today's morons who kill each other for praying to a different hypothesis. 

I guess that puts the origin of stupidity at somewhere after 6000 BC.

[varsigma]

I think infinity has more than one version.

Some mathematicians point out that infinity can't be a number, it can't have any value. Yet, we use the phrase "infinite number" as if it has meaning. And, it sort of does, but not a rigorous one, and mathematicians really like rigor.

You're allowed to have a boundary, at infinity. But "at" infinity, any finite value is meaningless--if you move a finite distance along an infinite line, you're where you started--at infinity. You haven't moved anywhere. At infinity, an infinite set of lines, all parallel, are the same line "at" infinity--I mean, how could you tell if there are no finite distances?

I think that kind-of explains something I learned in 1st year calculus about integrals over the reals: integrating from negative infinity to positive infinity means that both are 'projected' to the same point--at infinity or at the boundary of the reals, negative and positive infinity are at the same place--at the same infinity. That was a bit of a gosh moment.

Ed: my interpretation of it is that since finite distances aren't meaningful once you're "at" infinity, neither is movement along the real line, so neither is direction. Hence, "at" infinity, negative and positive directions mean the same thing--nothing.

moreover, since a finite distance contains an infinite set of points (see how I avoided the word number there), any integral over the reals is co-infinite. Or, equally infinite. Mathematicians like to know that the real line is closed, and it is, at infinity.

[cpu68]

infinity?

An intuitive analysis of being (which could be translated into a logical analysis) indicates that no being can be infinite. Only nothingness can be infinite.

[varsigma]

Only nothingness can be infinite.

Hmm.
Apparently, there are also different versions of nothing.

There's the nothing that you find inside an empty box, but an empty box isn't actually empty is it?

There's the nothing in a vacuum devoid of matter, but fields extend throughout the universe, so a vacuum isn't really empty either.

There's the empty set which is always empty, but the set exists, a set isn't nothing.

Also there's the nothing in the void space in Boundary Logic. This logic lets you create a boundary which immediately gives you a relation between the bounded interior and the rest of the empty space; you can impose true/false conditions such that you "recover" Boolean Logic. From nothing.
Actually, you do need some rules which look a lot like composition, you know, addition and multiplication say.

[alancalverd]

Only nothingness can be infinite.

Hmm.
Apparently, there are also different versions of nothing.

There's the nothing that you find inside an empty box, but an empty box isn't actually empty is it?

if it doesn't contain what it says on the lid, or what you expected to find in it, it is empty.

There's the nothing in a vacuum devoid of matter, but fields extend throughout the universe, so a vacuum isn't really empty either.

it is empty of atoms and molecules

There's the empty set which is always empty, but the set exists, a set isn't nothing.

Sets do not exist independently of the person discussing them. A set is whatever you define it to be, and for as long as it is useful. So whilst your empty set may exist, mine doesn't, right now. 

Also there's the nothing in the void space in Boundary Logic. This logic lets you create a boundary which immediately gives you a relation between the bounded interior and the rest of the empty space; you can impose true/false conditions such that you "recover" Boolean Logic. From nothing.
Actually, you do need some rules which look a lot like composition, you know, addition and multiplication say.

  "Lets you create" is the giveaway - if you want a hypothetical space to contain nothing at all, or crocodiles, they are equally valid constructs.

Beware of confusing a model with reality, or thinking that words create a fixed reality, always. A word means what the listener takes it to mean.

[varsigma]

if it doesn't contain what it says on the lid, or what you expected to find in it, it is empty.

So that it contains nothing, and that's the sense of the word there. 'Nothing' is probably like 'sets' if you decide that you can't have them existing independently of a human mind. The thing I have with sets not existing independently is all those sets that haven't yet been considered by any human mind.

But that is probably another story altogether. Yuk yuk.

[alancalverd]

A have an empty box in front of me. It says "pens" on the label but is actually full of air. The absence of pens is not the presence of nothing. An empty head may contain a brain, if the  brain belongs to a politician or "celebrity" - the point is that it doesn't contain anything of value or interest to me. 

[varsigma]

One more.

If zero represents nothing, then there's the power of nothing. Any value to the power of zero is one, or unity.
There appears to be some philosophical debate still, about zero to the power of zero.

[alancalverd]

That's a big "if". I'm flying along at 5000 ft hands-off, and my rate of climb indicator reads zero. That represents the aircraft in perfect trim at the desired altitude, so I can get on with the paperwork or eat my lunch - your "nothing" is the result of years of study and practice!

[varsigma]

your "nothing" is the result of years of study and practice!

Well, zero is the result of centuries of mathematical debate and the development of algebra.

Why is a number to the power of zero equal to 1? Because exponents are additive, and when they add to zero, the only possibility is the number multiplied by its inverse, which is always equal to 1.

[alancalverd]

So nothing special about zero, then.

xⁿ> x if n > 0, xⁿ < x for x <0, so xⁿ = x if x = 0.