In the “cold death” scenario of the end of the universe, wouldn’t time be infinite?
Uh…as mathmatical abstractions?
Do we assume that?
Time would be meaningless at that point.
Well ok, maybe not YOU.
But by current theories, the Universe is of finite (but vast) size, had a beginning and will have an end.
In some variations of this idea, there is a low-level continuing “black hole” energy economy, as black holes eat/emit matter. Such events could be used to tell time.
As msmith537 notes, the concept of time can become meaningless, e.g., in a cosmos where there are no events of any kind. If all clocks stop time doesn’t become “infinite.” It doesn’t “stop” either. It just ceases to be something anyone could measure.
No need to get snarky, Stephen Hawking. I’m familiar with the universe having a beginning (Big Bang) and one of several possible ends. But I was not aware they have established a theoretical “size” of the universe outside of the 47 billion light-year radius ball of universe we can observe from the Earth. As far as I had heard, the actual volume of universe we sit in might still be infinite.
Also, time slows down the closer the observer is to a source of gravity (IOW mass). I’m not sure what that means for a universe where all mass has evaporated into background radiation.
But also at very, very, very, (etc) long time spans, entropy can reverse, because it’s a statistical observation rather than an unbreakable rule. So eventually, just by random flucuations of the vacuum, hydrogen gas, and black holes, there will spontaneously arise objects. It’s just we’d have to wait a seemingly endless number of billions of years to just see a spontanous grouping of one kilogram of hydrogen come together for a second or two, let alone anything with real complexity.
Yes, I did. I tried to engage the OP in the terms used, but don’t accept them as the only possible absolutes.
But the OP did not introduce God to the conversation.
Or as a definition? Does a definition qualify as an absolute?
Congratulations. You just invented calculus.
And possibly particle physics - I’m not certain.
Calculus handles infinities (division by zero) quite deftly using limits.
Mmm, I was’t being snarky. Constantly approaching but never reaching zero is calculus to me. And “the smallest possible particles … not nothingness” sounds like the physics that I am will to believe from equations rather than understand intellectually.
infinity: There are a couple different meanings and mathmatical definitions, but it is essentially a set without limits. It is difficult to comprehend because we tend to think in discrete or finite terms. Like we can comprehend a really really big universe. We can’t comprehend an infinite one. People always think “where does it stop?” or “what is it contained in?” The answer is “it doesn’t” and “nothing”. Otherwise it would still be universes all the way down.
eternity: t = oo (although I don’t suppose that helps).
perfection: This one is actually easier to define as science doesn’t actually define “perfection”. EVERYTHING (give or take) has degrees of uncertainty or errors. So scientists rarely express anything in absolute terms.