- #1
Vivek des
- 9
- 0
Iam wondering whether 'infinity' has real physical existence or just a mathematical paradox? If it does have a physical existence why don't we come across any quantity which is physically eternal? Someone please help..
Vivek des said:Iam wondering whether 'infinity' has real physical existence or just a mathematical paradox? If it does have a physical existence why don't we come across any quantity which is physically eternal? Someone please help..
Vivek des said:Iam wondering whether 'infinity' has real physical existence or just a mathematical paradox? If it does have a physical existence why don't we come across any quantity which is physically eternal? Someone please help..
Vivek des said:Iam wondering whether 'infinity' has real physical existence or just a mathematical paradox?.
arildno said:What is paradoxical about infinity as a mathematical object?
Counter-intuitive in many ways, sure. But paradoxical?
Hepic said:You can feel 'infinity'. You just need two mirrors. After put your body between mirrors(the first to show your face,and the second to show your back.),and look yourself. You will see infinite times your body.
Different kinds of infinities?No-where-man said:Interesting, the funny thing is I do not not find this counter-intuitive at all, I also do not find this paradoxical at all as well.
Theoritically you can. You have not mirron 180 degrees,but less or more,so you can see your back and the next person,etc...phinds said:Actually, you won't. If you angle the mirror enough so that you can actually SEE the back of your head the images will go off to the side and eventually run out. If you angle the mirror perpendicular to your view you can only see your face and no views of the back of your head.
Hepic said:Theoritically you can. You have not mirron 180 degrees,but less or more,so you can see your back and the next person,etc...
Even if you had a mirror made of unobtainium that reflected 100% of the light without distortion, because of the finite speed of light you'd need to wait an infinite time to see an infinite number of images.Hepic said:You can feel 'infinity'. You just need two mirrors. After put your body between mirrors(the first to show your face,and the second to show your back.),and look yourself. You will see infinite times your body.
Khashishi said:Plenty of our physical models have infinities. Whether these are real is something that cannot be answered. The models work, and that's all we can say.
No-where-man said:The problem is, that so far, I have not seen any model that represents true infinity.
No-where-man said:The problem is, that so far, I have not seen any model that represents true infinity.
ZapperZ said:In many of the material that you use, there are properties in those material in which these infinities occur. The van Hove singularity, especially in the phonon density of states, makes itself known via the various property of the material. Similarly, the singularity in the density of states at the edge of the energy gap in a superconductor influences the property of the material.
ZapperZ said:Huh?
Did you miss that, or are you saying that those are not "true infinity"?
Zz.
arildno said:Well.
Isn't it a distinction between a) finding results compatible with an existing singularity, and indeed derivable from regarding it as existent and b) To show the singularity's existence?
The distinction lies in that showing the actual existence of a singularity (or anything else not directly observable) requires that the (sum total of) effects we DO observe cannot be derivable from any other situation.ZapperZ said:I don't see the distinction. How else do you show the existence of a singularity other than having a set of results that are compatible with the existence of it? How else do you show the existence of superconductivity than having a set of results that are consistent with the existence of superconductivity?
Zz.
arildno said:The distinction lies in that showing the actual existence of a singularity (or anything else not directly observable) requires that the (sum total of) effects we DO observe cannot be derivable from any other situation.
arildno said:"We ARE still talking about physics, aren't we?"
Sure, but this isn't abstruse philosophy, but is a perfectly valid point in standard maths:
For a trivial example, take the limit value V of a perfectly standard infinite sum.
Just because V is a value you measure, and indeed can predict to measure by adding an INFINITE terms of that sum, doesn't mean that adding a FINITE googoolplex of terms won't give just about V as your result.
Furthermore, as for singularities:
Does it always follow that just by postulating a singularity and get accurate predictions from that (for example, which is standard, modelling the vibrations of a metal bar as the results of a sharp hammer blow by means of the Dirac Delta function therefore prove that the magnitude of the force used was actually infinite, lasting 0 seconds?
---------------------------------
"And there are NO other alternative theory in which such singularity does not exist to explain the body of data. What else can you conclude?"
That IS, indeed, the sufficient criterion after which I asked.
![]()
phinds said:Define "true infinity"
ZapperZ said:I don't see the distinction. How else do you show the existence of a singularity other than having a set of results that are compatible with the existence of it? How else do you show the existence of superconductivity than having a set of results that are consistent with the existence of superconductivity?
Zz.
Yes, and it's a clear distinction in science. Not only applicable to singularities. One can only wonder what makes such a straightforward distinction so hard to understand.arildno said:Isn't it a distinction between a) finding results compatible with an existing singularity, and indeed derivable from regarding it as existent and b) To show the singularity's existence?
arildno said:Well.
Isn't it a distinction between a) finding results compatible with an existing singularity, and indeed derivable from regarding it as existent and b) To show the singularity's existence?
Really? Please explain how science can "show the existence" of anything whatever, except by "finding results that are compatible with its existence".TrickyDicky said:Yes, and it's a clear distinction in science.
AlephZero said:Really? Please explain how science can "show the existence" of anything whatever, except by "finding results that are compatible with its existence".
The map is not the territory.
AlephZero said:Really? Please explain how science can "show the existence" of anything whatever, except by "finding results that are compatible with its existence".
The map is not the territory.
AlephZero said:Really? Please explain how science can "show the existence" of anything whatever, except by "finding results that are compatible with its existence".
The map is not the territory.
Infinity is a concept in mathematics and physics that refers to something that has no end or is unbounded. It is often represented by the symbol ∞.
No, infinity is not a real number. It is an abstract concept that represents something that is limitless or boundless.
No, infinity cannot be measured because it is not a tangible quantity. It is a concept used to describe something that is endless or unbounded.
It is debatable whether infinity exists in the physical world. Some theories in physics, such as the concept of the multiverse, suggest that infinity may exist in some form. However, it is not something that can be directly observed or measured.
Infinity is used in many areas of mathematics, including calculus, geometry, and number theory. It is often used to describe the behavior of numbers or functions as they approach a limit or become infinitely large or small.