Infinity. Yes? No?

My favorite example, that stopped me thinking about the “endpoint” of an infinite ray, is from the late George Gamow’s wonderful book, ONE TWO THREE…INFINITY. His example was to think of a hotel with a finite number of rooms, all of them filled. A new guest shows up, the hotel is stuck, they can’t provide a room.

Now imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, all of them filled. A new guest shows up. The clerk says, “Sure, no problem.” He moves the people from room 1 into room 2, the people from room 2 into room 3, the people from room 3 into room 4, the people from room N into room N+1, etc etc. Lo and behold, every former hotel guest has a room, and now room 1 is open for the new guest.

Even more mind-boggling: suppose an infinite number of guests show up at the hotel, asking for rooms. Again, the clerk says, “No problem.” He moves the people from room 1 into room 2, from room 2 into room 4, from room 3 into room 6, from room 4 into room 8, … from room N into room 2N, etc etc. Now, he has moved all the guests into the even-numbered rooms, and all the odd-numbered rooms are open to accomodate the infinite number of new guests.

You can’t think about “infinite” the way you think about finite.

In terms of the universe itself being finite, think of an intelligent two-dimensional bug in a two-dimensional plane… he thinks it’s infinite in all directions. Suppose instead, he’s on the surface of a very large beach ball. As far as the bug can tell, he’s on a plane, infinite in all directions. Yet, if he walks in a straight line from his point of origin, he goes around like a longitude line, and comes back to where he started – yet he never encountered an edge or a boundary. He has no concept of three dimensions, so he can’t understand how this happened. His universe is finite and but has no boundary. In the same way (analogously) our universe could be bent around in some fourth dimensional way that we can’t visualize, that would make it finite but unbounded.

The more fun thought than a universe shaped like a four-dimensional sphere is a universe shaped like a four-dimensional Moebius band. Heh.

Final comment, on why space and time are “the same.” They aren’t, per se. They are intricately bound together. You can’t describe a point in space without also describing its point in time. You can say that at a certain time, the planet Mars is HERE relative to the sun, and at another time it is THERE. Thus, time can be thought of as a dimension, similar to the three spatial dimensions, used to describe the universe around us.

One of the ways of visualizing four-dimensional space is to think of time as the fourth dimension. I want to visualize a four-dimensional sphere of radius 1, I think of it as starting at time 0 as a point, the point expands (like a balloon blowing up) over the next few seconds, becoming a sphere of radius 1 at time 1, then it starts decreasing in size (like a balloon deflating) until at time 2 it’s back to a point and then disappears. You thus have visualized a sphere that has radius 1 in four dimensions, using time as the fourth dimension. Nothin’ to it.

Using that as a 4-dimensional model of the universe makes some sense, too: at point of Big Bang, the universe is a point, expanding over the billion of years as a sphere, and eventually contracting to a point again (say, for example).

Dang it, CKDextHavn! I was just about to use that beach ball analogy. :stuck_out_tongue: It has a lot to do with why I started thinking about infinity in the first place. People kept telling me that the universe was infinite, and I didn’t buy it. Then I thought that you could travel in one direction forever on Earth and never find an end to it. Add a dimension, and that could be the universe. On Earth, we learned to fly, and then to leave the atmosphere, and now we can leave Earth altogether and look upon it. I wonder if someday we’ll learn to leave the universe in some fashion and see what else there is?

Anyway, back to the original question. I’m aware that the analogy has a very limited usefulness when talking about physical reality, because you have to pick and choose which physical properties to give it to make the thought experiment work. I was just asking because I’ve used this example as a paradox to explain to people why I don’t think that there really is such a thing as infinity (at least in the physical world), and I don’t want to use that as an example if it’s not really a paradox at all.

BugZap:
When I stated what the “clapper” was used for, I did say “originally”. I know that’s not their purpose anymore, but way back when, I think it was. They certainly didn’t have handy digital clocks built into them. heh

Greg Charles:
I actually don’t consider the Achilles race much of a paradox (much to the chagrin of my 8th grade science teacher) because of the context. Achilles would have to have the intention of doing nothing but halving the distance to the tortoise, and never actually want to pass it. I would assume that because he’s in a race, his goal is actually the finish line. It’s true that at various points he will pass what was a halfway point between the tortoise and another point behind him, but that’s just incidental.
Or you could look at it another way: as soon as the distance between him and the tortoise was less than two of his strides, it would be a moot point. Call it a paradigm shift.

Well, all that said, does anyone have anything else to say on the subject of infinity? I think I kinda have support for my opinion that the universe probably isn’t infinite, but it’s always hard to tell in these things.

I’m enjoying the discussion, despite my feeble grasp of physics and mathematics. To CKDext: Thanks for the explanations. Your analogies make a lot of sense. BUT to address the original question: all these scenarios support the idea that the universe may APPEAR finite to us. That’s not the same thing as really BEING finite.(“The truth? You can’t HANDLE the truth!”)

In answer to your question, Tenn, the answer is that we don’t yet know. Some theoretic scientists envision the universe as infinite; some as finite. Since most subscribe to the Big Bang theory, I think there is general agreement that MATTER is only found in a finite radius of the Big Bang… but those who think the universe is infinite say that’s just because matter hasn’t expanded there yet.

Until someone can look far enough in a telescope to see his own behind, or some similar event occurs, we just don’t know for sure.

It seems to me that the only thing that can be classified as being infinte is space. It’s been my understanding that the universe is all that stuff left over from the Big Bang. Space, on the other hand, is what all that stuff is in. The universe continues to expand outward, getting bigger and bigger, takeing up more space.

It’s hard for me to imagine a boundry to space, where all the stuff out there wraps around and starts crashing into all the planets, stars, asteroids and whatever else on the other side, or bounceing off the edge of space, or perhaps just suddenly ceaseing to exist.

Of course, just because I have difficultly imagining it this way, that doesn’t mean that’s not the way it is.

You know, that brings me to another question (someone just kick me if this should have been posted as another thread), but how do we know that one of those galaxies we see nearly 14 billion light years away isn’t our own galaxy? Of course it wouldn’t look* like the Milky Way, but it was also billions of years ago. Is there any way to verify whether or not an idea that unconventional is true? I can’t really think of any way it could be even close to proven.

Check out Scientific American from a couple of months ago. There was an article (possibly a cover story–can’t quite remember and I don’t have the issue handy) about the shape of the universe. Basically, if the universe is small (i.e. curved around fast enough so that we are already seeing ourselves from the back side), there are predictable patterns of light we would expect to see in the sky, depending on the exact geometry. AFAIK, none of these patterns has been observed, so the universe is probably bigger than the dimensions of the current sphere of light produced by the Big Bang.

Did that make sense?–I’m running on two hours of sleep.

Rick

Actually, that was exactly what I was asking, thanks. :slight_smile:

Sorry, but I have no answers to the questions raised here.

However, if any of the Teeming Millions knows a mathmatician who specializes in knots, loops, and coils, I’d love to see his or her response to any of the Infinity topics.

I have a Ph.D. in algebraic topology, so I did take a course or two in knot theory (hey, if it’s knot theory, what is it, ho ho). You can read my comments above. The general notion of a finite universe is that it would likely be spherical (in 4-dimensions, of course) but a Moebius-shaped curve is not impossible. If the universe were Moebius-shaped, we could manufacture only (say) left-handed gloves, ship half of them around the universe, and they would come back right-handed.

That’s enough. I think I’ll take a cold drink now.

CK…wow–I am impressed!

Actually, though, I wasn’t referring to the shape of the universe, but to the theoretical “latticework” that makes it up.

I don’t have the cites handy (I know…I am a vile and contemptable creature), but I recall several articles and at least one textbook which delved fairly deeply into the theoretical maximums for universe size, universe shape, and number of possible elementary particles, based on this latticework.

The few experiments that I’ve seen published all seem to agree that this latticework doesn’t resemble an orderly “grid” so much as it resembles a suit of chainmail with interlocking rings, knots, or loops.

OK…I’m confusing everyone (myself, most of all) because I am not knowledgeable enough to make even a half-assed guess. I’ll look up my cites on this.

But until then, can you clear any of this up, CK?

I asked the infinity question in the Infinite monkeys with typewriters coming up with Hamlet. Now I can’t find the whole topic.(There’s something odd about my settings in “search”)Anyone remember whose topic it was?

mightyjustice wrote:

The tricky concept here is that space is a property of the universe itself. Before the Big Bang, when all matter and energy was located in one point, there was no space. And there’s no space “outside” the universe for it to expand into, because by definition, the universe includes everything, so there is no “outside”. The universe is expanding in relation to itself.

I’ve read several analogies which explain more clearly what this means, but I haven’t got the books in front of me. I’ll dig through the shelves and try to find something to quote.

Space:
b : physical space independent of what occupies it – called also absolute space.

Universe:
c (1) : the entire celestial cosmos

C&P’d from the Mirriam-Webster site.
I chose these two definitions because they fit this discussion.
Space to me is absolute nothingness, regardless of what occupies it. Or doesn’t occupy it.
The universe is all that arose from the big bang. The cosmos.
So, to my literal mind, space existed even before the big bang when the universe began to expand and occupy it.
When theory begins to overwhelm me I resort to simplicity. It’s comforting. :slight_smile:
Peace,
mangeorge

A postscript;
Space is infinite, the universe is not.
mangeorge