Infinity: a symbol or reality.

[socratus]

Infinity: a symbol or reality.
1. Everyone knows, that absolute temperature T=0K cannot be reached.
We can only indefinitely come nearer to her.
2. Everyone knows, that nobody can reach
absolute speed of quantum of light c=1.
We can only indefinitely come nearer to her.
3. But everyone also knows, that only quantum of light goes with
absolute speed c=1.
It is the fact, it is a reality.
Question: Unless can this absolute movement c=1 occur in relative reference frame ?
Answer: No.!
The absolute movement can occur only in absolute frame of reference.
But only one absolute frame of reference is known T=0K
(which is impossible to reach).
And only in her quantum of light can move with the absolute speed c=1.
And it is also reality.
But what can tell quantum of light about his travel in the parallel world?
* * *
Best regards.
Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com

[ed van der meulen]

It depends

When you are alive and look at all those leaves and all are different then you can't reach the horizon. So for you infinity is not reachable. Cosmolist say 14 billion light years away then we maybe see an edge.

I am a pure mathematician. And I agree with you. But many of my colleagues don't. Infinity is easy in mathematical formulae. That is true. But what is infity in a computer. Infinity is for me a notion that we can use with profit. But not as a valid number. No as a sign written on a label of a container. That container is the mathematical set N. But infinity is only written on a label of that container. It's a cardinnal number while we are counting with ordinal numbers.

And otherwise please show me infinity

a hot chocolate milk, please

ed van der meulen

[Epsilon=One]

Infinity: a symbol or reality.Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) is neither "a symbol or reality" as both are concepts that exist.

Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) does not exist. Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) is a limit which cannot be reached from Reality. (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=188)

[hector berlioz]

[QUOTE=Epsilon=One]Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) is neither "a symbol or reality" as both are concepts that exist.

Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) does not exist.

How can you say infinity dose not exist? It is a very real term.
and indeed a symbol. For instance the limit of 1/x^2 as x approches 0 does not exist by the persice definiton of a limit, however we say it eqauls infinity to represent that it continues to rise with out bond.

[Epsilon=One]

How can you say infinity dose not exist? It is a very real term.
and indeed a symbol. For instance the limit of 1/x^2 as x approches 0 does not exist by the persice definiton of a limit, however we say it eqauls infinity to represent that it continues to rise with out bond.You have misinterpreted my statement.

Mathematical infinity does exist. I believe there are 40 some definitions. However, I consider the infinity of mathematics as an imperfectly defined contrivance by the very fact that it does exist as you contend. I understand Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) as a limit beyond existence.

You will note that I define Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) as a singularity. There can be only one singularity by definition.

You apparently missed noting my italics and capitalization of Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109); and, did not bother to follow the link to a definition.

[socratus]

The concept of Vacuum as infinite, eternal, absolute, homogeneous
space, speaks nothing to the scientists, causes them bewilderment and "horror".
They do not perceive how to derive some concrete actual values
from these characteristics. Not perceiving it, they look as bewitched
at Vacuum.
The concepts such as "more, "less", "equal", "similar" do not conform
to the word "perpetuity/eternity". The perpetuity/eternity is something
that has not boundaries and discontinuity, it could not be compared
with anything. Having reasoned so, the scientists conclude that
the perpetuity/eternity defies physical and mathematical definition
and cannot be taken into account in actual processes.
Therefore, they proclaimed the stringent requirement
(at a level of the censor of the law):
"Perpetuity/eternity should be removed in order for theory to be exact".
And all mathematical abilities, all mental energy they
direct to the removal of perpetuity. They invent different mathematical
"dodges": " method of renormalization ", “ mechanism of Higgs”, etc.
But it is "labor of Sizief". It is "battle of Don Quixote with a windmill".
They deceive both themselves and believers in science.
All phenomena of micro cosmoses require taking into consideration
the structure of indefinite/eternal Vacuum.
Denying the fact of perpetuity scientists
deprive hope to create the Unified Theory of Geneses.
Therefore, it is necessary simply to understand and realize an
essence and importance of the structure of perpetuity/eternity.
Let us take an indefinitely decimal fraction 0, 99999999....
No matter how much times we would add 9 after comma,
this number will never become a unit: 1.
Such unlimited repetition of the same has received the name of
" bad perpetuity". And really, it is impossible to deduce something
concrete, actual from it.
Nevertheless, not such a "bad perpetuity" is seen in Vacuum,
which plays the relevant role in a Picture of Geneses.
========================
Why is Vacuum not a " bad perpetuity"?
Because Vacuum has one physical parameter: temperature .
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference
is in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests relic radiation of the Big Bang ).
Ok.
What geometric and physical parameters can particles have in T=2,7K?
Can they have a volume?
No.
According to the laws of physics :
J. Charles ( 1787), Gay-Lussac ( 1802), V. Nernst ( 1910),
A. Einstein ( 1925)
particles in a Vacuum cannot have density, volume and consequently
should be flat figures. This means, particles have the geometrical
form of a circle, as from all flat figures the circle has the most
optimum form: C/D =pi= 3,14.
What these "virtual" circles do in the Vacuum?
Nothing.
They are in a condition of rest: h = 0. So, maybe they are dead?
In order to answer of this question, it is necessary to more clearly
understand EMPTINESS- NOTHING.- VACUUM.
============================
In the physics models of the Vacuum have been created long time ago.
These are:
1) the Theory of ideal gas.
2) the Theory of absolutely black body.
3) negative four-dimensional space (Minkowski space - SRT).
There is no need to discover America again,
to build new theories of the Vacuum.
If we want to understand Vacuum it is necessary to ask:
what a geometrical and physical parameters
the particles in Vacuum T=0K (T=2,7K) can have?
The Physics starts with this question.

[Epsilon=One]

For the most part I strongly agree with what you write. Often when physicists, in particular, discard concepts of Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) from the results of their calculations, they are throwing away the answer. This is particularly true regarding the speed of gravity and “emergent dark” energy . . . and concepts of non-locality.

However, there are a few of your comments, that are inconsistent with your general argument, concerning Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) that I disagree with.

Such unlimited repetition of the same has received the name of "bad perpetuity". And really, it is impossible to deduce something concrete, actual from it.There is much that can be deduced from the concept of Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109). For instance by, defining what an object is not says much about the object. And, Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) is the only provable as it can not be disproved. Et cetera.

Why is Vacuum not a " bad perpetuity"?

Because Vacuum has one physical parameter: temperature .
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests relic radiation of the Big Bang ).Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) can have no temperature as it is without any physical properties that “exist” . . . including “space.” And, of course, the “Big Bang” is entirely mythical.

According to the laws of physics :
J. Charles ( 1787), Gay-Lussac ( 1802), V. Nernst ( 1910),
A. Einstein ( 1925) particles in a Vacuum cannot have density, volume and consequently should be flat figures. This means, particles have the geometrical form of a circle, as from all flat figures the circle has the most optimum form: C/D =pi= 3,14.You are carelessly confusing “a Vacuum” with Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109); this, as are most analogies, is poor reasoning. The “flat figures” you refer to are not without dimensions; so, are useless in describing Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109). You must use a dimensionless point if you are concerned with a geometric symbol.

… it is necessary to more clearly
understand EMPTINESS- NOTHING.- VACUUM.
============================


…If we want to understand Vacuum it is necessary to ask:
what a geometrical and physical parameters
the particles in Vacuum T=0K (T=2,7K) can have?

The Physics starts with this question.Yes, you are correct with your question concerning where “Physics starts”; however, to rationalize existence from its beginning, there is no place for “particles in Vacuum T=0K (T=2,7K).”