Can Time Be Infinite?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter 1MileCrash
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinite Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of whether time can be infinite, exploring philosophical and theoretical implications. Participants engage with arguments related to cosmology, entropy, and paradoxes, as well as personal interpretations of time's nature.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue against the idea of infinite time, suggesting that if time were infinite, the present moment could not exist due to an infinite amount of time preceding it.
  • Others challenge this reasoning, comparing it to Zeno's paradox and suggesting that infinite divisions do not prevent reaching a destination or moment in time.
  • Entropy is mentioned as a potential argument against infinite time, with the idea that systems tend toward equilibrium over time, implying a finite history.
  • Some participants propose that if time were infinite, the probability of existence at any specific moment approaches zero, raising questions about the origin of existence.
  • There are references to different cosmological models, such as the Big Bang and the Big Bounce, which influence perspectives on the age and nature of the universe.
  • One participant suggests that the concept of time may be a social construct, complicating discussions about its infinite nature.
  • Another viewpoint posits that while the universe may be finite in a "static instant," time itself could be viewed as an infinite field requiring infinite expansion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of time, with no consensus reached. Some support the idea of finite time based on cosmological models, while others argue for the possibility of infinite time, leading to ongoing debate.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves complex philosophical and theoretical considerations, with limitations stemming from differing interpretations of time, cosmological theories, and the implications of entropy. Some arguments are based on assumptions that remain untested or unresolved.

1MileCrash
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
41
"Time can't be infinite because.."

One of my closest friends have frequent discussions about science and math.

He has said to me on a couple of occasions:

Time cannot be infinite because if it were then this moment could have never came, because an infinite amount of time came before it.

I don't like this reasoning. Is my gut correct or is there some truth to what he is saying? I can't put it into words but, this isn't right..
 
Physics news on Phys.org


No truth or backing whatsoever. That makes no sense at all.

It is very similar to one of Zeno's paradoxes: The dichotomy paradox---in which you can never reach a destination without first going half way, and there are an infinite number of half-ways between you and your destination... thus it might seem you can never reach the destination.

This is similar to (but not quite equivalent) to there simply being an infinite number of points between any two locations in space (or time for that matter); but that doesn't keep you from traversing that distance (or time).

Calculus can easily dispense with these issues.
 


Unlike Zeno's paradox which decribes finite duration and finite distance events with descriptions that include limits of infinite term expressions, this is a case where someone is asking if time is infinite.

One argument against time going back infinitly is related to entropy, such as temperatures within any system evening out over time. You'd also have the issue of heat and light energy lost due to infrared waves escaping the physical part of the universe composed of matter. Still this is based on a theory that assumes that there can't be some cyclical nature to the universe.

Another argument is for anything (like the universe) that exists here and now, no matter how far it travels in distance or time, it will end up at some finite amount of distance or time from where it is now.
 


rcgldr said:
Unlike Zeno's paradox which decribes finite duration and finite distance events ... this is a case where someone is asking if time is infinite.
No; this is a case where someone is asking about a particular argument against time being infinite.

rcgldr said:
One argument against time going back infinitly...
Again, while an interesting topic, this isn't quite the point.
rcgldr said:
... is related to entropy, such as temperatures within any system evening out over time. You'd also have the issue of heat and light energy lost due to infrared waves escaping the physical part of the universe composed of matter. Still this is based on a theory that assumes that there can't be some cyclical nature to the universe.
The issue is completely untestable and unanswerable (at least at present). There are theories which agree with what you're saying, and others that completely dismiss them or explain them away.
 


1MileCrash said:
Time cannot be infinite because if it were then this moment could have never came, because an infinite amount of time came before it.
zhermes said:
No; this is a case where someone is asking about a particular argument against time being infinite.
To extend that particular argument, if a infinite amount of time came before the present, then any non-cyclical aspects of the universe would have taken place by "now".

Another related argument could the the probability of existence during any finite period of time. As the limit of time goes to infinity, the probability of existence at any specific finite period of time goes to zero. Where's the origin for anything that is infinite?

I agree that these arguments are based on theories about the nature of the universe.
 


zhermes said:
It is very similar to one of Zeno's paradoxes: The dichotomy paradox---in which you can never reach a destination without first going half way, and there are an infinite number of half-ways between you and your destination... thus it might seem you can never reach the destination.

Actually, that is a topic he has a firm misunderstanding of. He is very, very smart, much more so than me but in these topics I'm not sure he's done any reading.

He basically, agrees with zeno's paradox. "If I were to travel halfway to the refrigerator, then half again, then half again, then half again, I would never reach the refrigerator." And that repeatedly halving the distance is a different situation than just plainly walking to the refrigerator.

I walk to the refrigerator and reach it, to display the incorrectness.

Yet, that is two different situations according to him. He seems to think there is a difference between "actually" walking half way, then half way again, then half way again, and just walking to the refrigerator.

Just because I am smoothly walking towards the refrigerator at a constant speed doesn't mean I'm not repeatedly halving the distance traveled.

I'm guessing it just boils down to a fundamental disagreement.
 


The Universe is a sea of time.
Every universe has a beginning and an end, But do not worry, their children will endure until the appointed time of rest.

Then it's back to work again :)
 


1MileCrash said:
Zeno's paradox. If I were to travel halfway to the refrigerator, then half again, then half again, then half again, I would never reach the refrigerator.
If velocity is constant, and the toal time to reach the refrigature is "t", then you spend time t/2 walking the first half, then t/4 for half again, then t/8 for half again ...

The total time = t/2 + t/4 + t/8 + t/16 ... + t/∞ = t

So the total time for constant velocity remains the same no matter how you divide the time up. It's still a finite amount of time.

The original question was about time being infinite, which could be rephrased to ask if the universe had a beginning or was it always here?
 


I think your friends argument actually supports infinite time. Because it only works if there is a destination (a finite amount of time). You can't halve infinity. And using the assumption that there is a destination to prove there is a destination is circular logic.
Tell your friend there is no fridge. hehe :)
I don't know correct me if I am wrong I am just thinking..
 
  • #10


I've recently come to the conclusion that infinite fields require infinite expansion. The universe is sea of time, and time is an infinite field. But in a "static instant" of time, the universe is finite.
 
  • #11


Your friend it probably right in a practical sense. If the Big Bang model of the universe is correct (which is appears to be) then our own universe can't be infinitely old, at least not in the way we define time by that model, that time begins with the rest of the universe at the Big Bang. That is, as we let time go to zero with the Big Bang and General Relativistic equations, the universe becomes infinitely hot and dense, and we cannot mathematically or logically wind the clock back any further.

That doesn't necessarily mean he's right in a general/philosophical sense. Old cosmological models like the Big Bounce and Steady State relied on the fact that the Universe must be infinitely old. Is that even possible? Who knows. Your friend's assertion is that if we are here, then a infinite amount of time must have passed to get to this moment. Basically, if time began an infinitely long time ago, we would never have gotten to this moment, or any moment in time. I think this argument goes beyond properties that he or anyone else could reasonably know about time. It almost feels like a straw man argument to me. Time as a measuring system is really more of a social construct than anything else, so to take this construct and confine it to certain limitations and declare something about the inherent nature of it due to those limitations is just that: Creating an idea, making stuff up about it, and basically inferring some sort of physical implication from nothing.

You could argue there is also time as a dimension, a type of geometry, woven in with the fabric of space, creating the space-time continuum. In this sense, to say time is "infinite" is a poorly defined idea, in my mind.
 
  • #12


Time is only a standard to help measure the rate at which different objects move through space. Is it even logical to speak of the time of time?
 
  • #13


1MileCrash said:
One of my closest friends have frequent discussions about science and math.

He has said to me on a couple of occasions:

Time cannot be infinite because if it were then this moment could have never came, because an infinite amount of time came before it.

I don't like this reasoning. Is my gut correct or is there some truth to what he is saying? I can't put it into words but, this isn't right..

I assume you believe in the integers, the numbers ..., -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...

They have no beginning and no end; but any time you need an integer, say 47, you can just use it. You don't need to go through all of them left to right.

Time is like that. We're here now. We know that for certain. How we got here is for the philosophers and theologians.

Hmmmmmm ... perhaps time is like a tape that's infinite in both directions with but with random access if you have a high enough permissions. So if you have your "God bit" set, you can get to any instant you need ... instantly.

Just sort of kidding with that last remark ... but the integers give a very nice model of a system that's unbounded in two directions, which we can label "past and future," or "left and right" -- they're only labels, after all -- yet any element we need is immediately available to us.
 
Last edited:
  • #14


I just wanted to point out that in the process of
  • Walking half-way to the refrigerator
  • Walking half of what remains of the distance to the refrigerator
  • Walking half of what remains of the distance to the refrigerator
  • Walking half of what remains of the distance to the refrigerator
  • ...
you do indeed never reach the refrigerator.

The fallacy is in the added assumption that this process is somehow "complete" and that nothing can come afterwards. I can imagine a few odd viewpoints that would justify this assumption -- but that just means those viewpoints are very limited, and incapable of actually undertaking an analysis like the above. (or that the viewpoints are flat-out inconsistent)
 
  • #15


1MileCrash said:
Yet, that is two different situations according to him. He seems to think there is a difference between "actually" walking half way, then half way again, then half way again, and just walking to the refrigerator.

Just because I am smoothly walking towards the refrigerator at a constant speed doesn't mean I'm not repeatedly halving the distance traveled.
There is a big difference between walking toward the refrigerator at constant speed, versus walking in halved steps at a constant time per half step. If a refreigerator is 10 m away, and I walk toward it at 1 m/s, I arrive there in 10 seconds. If, instead, I walk the first 5 meters in 1 second, the next 2.5 m in 1 second, the next 1.25 m in 1 second, and so on, then mathematically, I will never get there in a finite time. Physically, after a certain amount of time has passed, I will arrive, assuming I am a point particle, to within a Planck's length of the fridge. Then I make my quantum jump across whatever secrets lie within that mysterious space.
 
  • #16


1MileCrash said:
Actually, that is a topic he has a firm misunderstanding of. He is very, very smart, much more so than me but in these topics I'm not sure he's done any reading.

He basically, agrees with zeno's paradox. "If I were to travel halfway to the refrigerator, then half again, then half again, then half again, I would never reach the refrigerator." And that repeatedly halving the distance is a different situation than just plainly walking to the refrigerator.

I walk to the refrigerator and reach it, to display the incorrectness.

Yet, that is two different situations according to him. He seems to think there is a difference between "actually" walking half way, then half way again, then half way again, and just walking to the refrigerator.

Just because I am smoothly walking towards the refrigerator at a constant speed doesn't mean I'm not repeatedly halving the distance traveled.

I'm guessing it just boils down to a fundamental disagreement.

Yes, but you are also halving the time it takes to travel the next distance. So according to Zeno philosophy, not only are you stuck in SPACE, but you are also stuck in TIME because the time interval during a jump goes to zero. I don't know if he mentioned time with this particular paradox. he did in others. Ask your friend if he thinks EXISTENCE is continuous. Let's take movement from Point A to Point B. Suppose existence is NOT continuous but consists of 'jumps' in space and through time on the order of the PLANCK LENGTH(google it) and PLANCK TIME. Then it is possible to get from point A to point B because there is a finite number of jumps, even though there is an infinite number of ABSTRACT points between A and B. Same argument for time. It's possible to get from time A(before) to time B(after) because there is a finite number of time jumps, even though there is an infinite number of ABSTRACT time intervals between time A and time B.

Think about watching a film of someone walking. Film is usually 32 frames per second, there are gaps between frames yet when observing the film movement seems continuous. Is movement an illusion? Is physical reality an illusion? If you ask these type of questions then you have caught the 'spirit' of Zeno's phylosophy.

Numbers are infinite but don't forget they are all NEGATIVE left of zero. Ask your friend, what is NEGATIVE TIME? Get him to admit that time had a beginning at zero, then use PLANCK TIME to get to NOW. Time can still be infinite and even using PLANCK TIME it is impossible to get to THE END but NOW should be no problem. This way you both win...for now.
 
  • #17


LOL you posted about PLANCK LENGTH while i was writing about it. What is the Quantum Mechanical probability of that? LOL GIVE ME A NUMBER LOL
 
  • #18


Time is the fourth dimension. My geometric conclusion of time is like is this:
The first three dimensions are ofcourse, length, width, and depth. We represent these quite frequently with the letters x,y, and z. Where they intersect is normally represented by zero unless we are referring to the axis being relative to some other point in space.
Now, let's zoom on this zero intersection a few times and we will find that the lines do not always intersect. On small enough levels you will find that zero is only zero on averavge and that on the smallest levels of existence the zero intersection is vibrating. Probably because the expansion of the universe is not symetrical.
So, on this level of small what we find is a sphere of the probability of zero. This sphere can only expand. How can the lines possibly intersect each other at less than zero?
Time and space probably did have an origin but it's geometric shape is a sphere of constant expansion.
Everything in the universe is in perfect logical order. Position and weight, are both properties of time. Gravitational time dilation has to do with the density of the time particle in it's respective field. Outerspace is not a true vacuum. It is filled to the brim with the momentum created by electro magnetic force aniahaltions at the subatomic level.
Now, consider this: the sphere of probability should also have an x,y, and z axis, and it's own tiny sphere of probability and so on and so on.
I believe the first time dilation that we can comprehend would be the quark, the second is the proton, and the third is the distance between the atom's nucleous and the electron. If a distance in space becomes void of gravitational momentum it will be filled with what is known as vacuum energy.
Infinite fields require infinite expansion. But that does not mean that do not have a point of origin. Massless particles existed before the universe. an electro magnetic charge field existed before and without distance and time as we know it. Their fields permeate and exist within and without our own infinite expansion. "Heavy distance" causes their waves of energy to particlize as they slow down to light speed.
There was a time, or dare I say it, a virtual time when the four known forces were all one wave of force. Gravity broke away first, next electro magnetic, and then I believe was the strong force and then the weak force. The interactions of these forces created the distance/time field that we call home.
 
Last edited:
  • #19


36grit said:
Everything in the universe is in perfect logical order. Position and weight, are both properies of time. Gravitational time dilation has to do with the density of the time particle in it's respective field. Outerspace is not a true vacuum. It is filled to the brim with the momentum created by electro magnetic force aniahaltions at the subatomic level.

Seems to me like you just put together a bunch of physics terms and with no mainstream backing/evidence. What is this "time particle" you speak of?
 
  • #20


Just tell your friend that it's too soon to tell whether time is infinite.
 
  • #21


This thread has become too speculative. I will remind everyone of the PF Rules that all of you had agreed to.

This topic is done.

Zz.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad A question about the speed of light and electromagnetism
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
Undergrad Black hole and coordinate time from the perspective of Alice outside
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
Undergrad Event Horizon Gravity: Infinite or Not?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad What is the Connection Between Black Holes and the Big Bang?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad How does time add up to 1 second with infinite smaller amounts of time?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Undergrad What Experiments Demonstrate Time Dilation?
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
High School Why does it require an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light?
  • · Replies 130 ·
5
Replies
130
Views
16K
Undergrad Revisiting the Light Clock
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
Undergrad What Are the Limits of the Universe According to Cosmologists?
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
Undergrad Time travel is a fact or fiction.?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K