The big bang theory

@bunnyknight said
Just always remember this:
Don't ever divide infinity by zero! It will result in instant destruction of this universe.

Just for fun I was going to divide infinity by a negative number.
But after realizing the possible consequences 😱 I had the good sense to stop myself. 😳😬

@sonhouse said
@shavixmir
The business of the universe coming from a singularity, or infinitely condensed stuff, may be just viewed that way because we don't have a theory that conflates Einstein relativity with quantum mechanics.
My guess is there is no singularity if big bang is correct, just a seed of some size blowing up to be our universe where our physics is just not advanced enoug ...[text shortened]... e or maybe we figure out how to cross over into the other universes some think are there, somewhere.

Buzz Lightyear was slated to speak before a symposium of the world's greatest physicists, philosophical thinkers and refrigerator repair men to explain how he intended to get to infinity (and beyond).

Unfortunately he was called upon to save humanity from an alien invasion, so we will just have to wait until (hopefully) he is free to speak at the next symposium.

@sonhouse said
@shavixmir
The business of the universe coming from a singularity, or infinitely condensed stuff, may be just viewed that way because we don't have a theory that conflates Einstein relativity with quantum mechanics.
My guess is there is no singularity if big bang is correct, just a seed of some size blowing up to be our universe where our physics is just not advanced enoug ...[text shortened]... e or maybe we figure out how to cross over into the other universes some think are there, somewhere.

My focus here has been on whether or not infinity is a real value. And by "real value" I mean does the idea of infinity work when applied to physical reality.

A good example would be a real bridge spanning a river and connecting two points of land. I'm on one side of the river and want to get to the other side. If I imagine the bridge to be infinitely long can I realistically expect to get to the other side?
The answer seems to be self evident, but there are always people who disagree. You seem to have an adequate grasp of science, so has anything I've said about "infinite" and "infinity" ring true, or am I missing something?

From a mathematical point of view, "finite" and "infinite" are different concepts.
For example I'm told the the number of bitcoins that can be produced is finite(I don't know why) but I know the set of real numbers is infinite.

@venda said
From a mathematical point of view, "finite" and "infinite" are different concepts.
For example I'm told the the number of bitcoins that can be produced is finite(I don't know why) but I know the set of real numbers is infinite.

I understand how a set of real numbers can be infinite. You can count upwards (or down) for eternity and there will always be a higher or lower number.
This is why when talking about finite vs infinite I'm trying to be as clear as possible about what exactly it is I'm applying those concepts to. If my goal is to transverse an infinitely long bridge and get to the other side, I will never reach the other side.
What is weird about this is if there IS another side, and the bridge is spanning in that direction, I can never reach that point.. the other side is there, it exists, but I'm traveling across a bridge that never ends.

@suzianne said
It's okay if you don't get it, or if your experience with secondary education is too limited for you to get it.

This is the science forum. Explain don't denigrate, please.

@kilroy70 said
If there is nothing smaller than a single point then how can a singularity be "infinitely" small?

I'm not arguing with you as to what a singularity "is". I'm saying it can't stop getting smaller and at the same time be infinitely small. The contradiction should be apparent to anyone regardless of someones level of education.

I think the interpretation you are looking for is 'infinitely small' is a number too small to be measurable. If it cannot be assigned a value, it is infinitely small.

@kilroy70 said
I understand how a set of real numbers can be infinite. You can count upwards (or down) for eternity and there will always be a higher or lower number.
This is why when talking about finite vs infinite I'm trying to be as clear as possible about what exactly it is I'm applying those concepts to. If my goal is to transverse an infinitely long bridge and get to the other side ...[text shortened]... that point.. the other side is there, it exists, but I'm traveling across a bridge that never ends.

What if you can see the other side of the bridge but lack the proper tools to measure it's length?

@wildgrass said
What if you can see the other side of the bridge but lack the proper tools to measure it's length?

If I'm walking across a bridge that spans a river I will (in time) reach the other side.

Years ago I lived close enough to my job to get there walking. And this involved walking across a bridge that spanned a river. I didn't need to measure the bridge in order to get across, although I was able to estimate its length by how long it took to get across.
My main concern was getting to work on time. No tools for measuring the length of the bridge were needed for getting across, all I needed to know was how much time it would take to make the entire trip (from home to work)

If I was so tiny I existed only on the quantum level (the realm of quantum mechanics) then I suppose the ability to measure the length would be necessary for getting across the bridge. I'm not sure why 😕 it's so much different at that level, so I have to take it on faith that the quantum experts know what they're talking about.

@wildgrass said
I think the interpretation you are looking for is 'infinitely small' is a number too small to be measurable. If it cannot be assigned a value, it is infinitely small.

My interpretation is much narrower, and I'm not taking the ability for making measurements into account. But I don't see how this would disqualify my argument. If we develop an ability to measure something, does this mean that particular "something" didn't exist until it could be measured? Or does it mean unless something can be measured it can't be proven?

@suzianne said
There is nothing smaller than a single point. A singularity.

A single point must be something, therefore nothing would certainly be infinitely smaller than a single point.

@wildgrass said
This is the science forum. Explain don't denigrate, please.

Got to tell ya, Wildgrass...Telling Suzianne not to denigrate is like telling most people "DON'T BREATHE." They can't help it. They absolutely HAVE to breathe.

So, too, Suzianne can't help it. She simply HAS to denigrate. Especially if you've ever had so much as a single conservative thought, or even a slightly different opinion than her over anything--anything at all.

@kilroy70 said
My interpretation is much narrower, and I'm not taking the ability for making measurements into account. But I don't see how this would disqualify my argument. If we develop an ability to measure something, does this mean that particular "something" didn't exist until it could be measured? Or does it mean unless something can be measured it can't be proven?

If it cannot be measured then its size cannot be defined with a number. Thus, infinite.

@bunnyknight said
A single point must be something, therefore nothing would certainly be infinitely smaller than a single point.

I suspect "infinitely small" is used to avoid saying "nothing". And this is especially true if reverse engineering the universe back to the big bang. Saying it all traces back to nothing is worse than meaningless, so I suppose calling the singularity infinitely small is better than...
nothing. 🤷‍♂️

@wildgrass said
If it cannot be measured then its size cannot be defined with a number. Thus, infinite.

Sorry, I still don't get it.
I don't see how an ability to make measurements has any effect on whether something is finite or infinite. It seems to me the word "infinite" (as you are using it) is a placeholder.

If something can be measured after it couldn't be measured does this mean something "infinite" then becomes "finite"?