Could a hotel with an infinite number of rooms be packed?

  • Thread starter Richard87
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Infinite
In summary: The idea of infinity is fine - a number that never ends, but its practical realization cannot be realized because it would imply an infinite information packet size - which cannot exist in reality. So, following on from that concept, the 1/r equation for increasing field strengths must cut-off at some level. There cannot be infinite field strengths for the same reason.
  • #1
Richard87
31
0
Could an imaginary hotel with an infinite number of rooms be packed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Only if there is an uncountable infinity of guests. Maybe if the Real Numbers decide to hold a convention.
 
  • #3
the hotel of interest has infinitely many rooms, so if you move the guest occupying room 1 to room 2, the guest occupying room 2 to room 3 and so on, you can fit the newcomer into room 1. By repeating this procedure, it is possible to make room for a countably infinite number of new clients: just move the person occupying room 1 to room 2, the guest occupying room 2 to room 4, and in general room N to room 2N, and all the odd-numbered rooms will be free for the new guests.

Apparantly an hotel with an infinite amount of rooms could never be packed, even with an infinite number of guests.
 
  • #4
Richard87 said:
Apparantly an hotel with an infinite amount of rooms could never be packed, even with an infinite number of guests.

Assuming one guest to a room, there can be a one-to one correspondence between guests and rooms. So the hotel would be "full" but they could always make room for more because [tex]\infty+1=\infty[/tex]
 
Last edited:
  • #5
This is a flawed argument because what the concept "infinite" actually equates to in mathematics/physics is "undefined". For example, in physics it is said that in order to make matter attain the speed of light it must have infinite energy... which comes out in equations as undefined. In black holes it is said that gravity compresses matter to such a condensed state that it has infinite density... which comes out to undefined in equations. And that is no less true than the question you have proposed. You have not defined how many rooms must be filled therefore there can be no answer.
 
  • #6
The idea of infinity is fine - a number that never ends, but its practical realization cannot be realized because it would imply an infinite information packet size - which cannot exist in reality. So, following on from that concept, the 1/r equation for increasing field strengths must cut-off at some level. There cannot be infinite field strengths for the same reason.

I find Pi is very interesting in that it appears never to be fully defined. There is a philosophical reason that must be so.
 
  • #7
Evolver said:
This is a flawed argument because what the concept "infinite" actually equates to in mathematics/physics is "undefined". For example, in physics it is said that in order to make matter attain the speed of light it must have infinite energy... which comes out in equations as undefined. In black holes it is said that gravity compresses matter to such a condensed state that it has infinite density... which comes out to undefined in equations. And that is no less true than the question you have proposed. You have not defined how many rooms must be filled therefore there can be no answer.

Infinity is in fact a valid concept subject to rigorous treatment in set theory. Even in physics cosmologists are considering the possibility of an infinite universe. The hotel example is an old one often used in teaching students about infinite sets.

In terms of my argument: 'The hotel is full but we can always make room for more.': you might ask if every room has a guest (one to one correspondence) how can there be a vacant room for a new guest? There is an answer. Can you figure it out?
 
  • #8
SW VandeCarr said:
Infinity is in fact a valid concept subject to rigorous treatment in set theory. Even in physics cosmologists are considering the possibility of an infinite universe. The hotel example is an old one often used in teaching students about infinite sets.

In terms of my argument: 'The hotel is full but we can always make room for more.': you might ask if every room has a guest (one to one correspondence) how can there be a vacant room for a new guest? There is an answer. Can you figure it out?

Infinity is still undefined by nature though. If something were truly infinite it would have no reason to define itself because doing so would impose a physical limitation. When scientists use infinity as a concept they do so in the sense that they also use virtual particles or imaginary numbers. There is no physical version of them, they simply represent a concept that cannot be otherwise described. Hawking's black body radiation uses virtual pairs at the event horizon of a black hole... it is a concept to explain that phenomenon.
 
  • #9
Evolver said:
When scientists use infinity as a concept they do so in the sense that they also use virtual particles or imaginary numbers.
Or, y'know, integers. The natural number 1 is no less abstract than anything else you listed there -- its only distinction that it, and some applications, were taught to you at a very young age.
 
  • #10
Hurkyl said:
Or, y'know, integers. The natural number 1 is no less abstract than anything else you listed there -- its only distinction that it, and some applications, were taught to you at a very young age.

Very true, that is a good point, Hurkyl. It makes my point about infinity being undefined even more true, because 1 is essentially no different than infinity to the universe, these are all man made concepts and as such only produce man made results. So the whole hotel question is already biased based on the idea that the universe would never produce such a paradox, only man can abstract this concept from exaggerated observations of the universe itself.
 
  • #11
Evolver said:
Very true, that is a good point, Hurkyl. It makes my point about infinity being undefined even more true, because 1 is essentially no different than infinity to the universe, these are all man made concepts and as such only produce man made results. So the whole hotel question is already biased based on the idea that the universe would never produce such a paradox, only man can abstract this concept from exaggerated observations of the universe itself.

Present observations seem to indicate the universe is flat which raises the real possibility that it is Euclidean and infinite. I started a topic recently in the Cosmology Forum entitled "Questionable article in Scientific American?" and linked to a summary of an article by physicist Max Tegmark regarding an infinite universe. It is so outlandish that it sounded frankly cranky to me. I was informed that though it is extremely weird it is not science fiction, but reasonable scientific speculation and not in violation of the laws of physics as they are currently known. The principle objections to an infinite universe are philosophical, not scientific.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
SW VandeCarr said:
Present observations seem to indicate the universe is flat which raises the real possibility that it is Euclidean and infinite. I started a topic recently in the Cosmology Forum entitled "Questionable article in Scientific American" and linked to a summary of an article by physicist Max Tegmark regarding an infinite universe. It so outlandish that sounded frankly cranky to me. I was informed that though it is extremely weird it is not science fiction, but reasonable scientific speculation and not in violation of the laws of physics as they are currently known.

Well the problem with speculation is that it completely rides on what theory you subscribe to. According to Relativity, the universe is constantly stretched and distorted. According to String Theory it has upwards of 9 spatial dimensions and a time dimension. M-theory indicates that it is the result of two interacting, higher dimensional branes.

Once you start dealing with alternate dimensions, ideas of infinity in a finite space arise, much like the Klein Bottle. At our current limited state of understanding, it is nothing more than speculation, though I do think it is an interesting idea.
 
  • #13
Evolver said:
Well the problem with speculation is that it completely rides on what theory you subscribe to. According to Relativity, the universe is constantly stretched and distorted. According to String Theory it has upwards of 9 spatial dimensions and a time dimension. M-theory indicates that it is the result of two interacting, higher dimensional branes.

Once you start dealing with alternate dimensions, ideas of infinity in a finite space arise, much like the Klein Bottle. At our current limited state of understanding, it is nothing more than speculation, though I do think it is an interesting idea.

Very fast response. I just wanted you to know I added one more sentence just after first posting: The principle objections (to an infinite universe) are philosophical, not scientific.
 
  • #14
SW VandeCarr said:
Very fast response. I just wanted you to know I added one more sentence just after first posting: The principle objections (to an infinite universe) are philosophical, not scientific.

I totally agree, and personally I'm not against the idea. I just know that, to this date that we are aware of, the universe has never defined anything as being truly infinite (because by definition if you defined it it could not be infinite.)

I see infinite as more of a man-made concept as opposed to a property of the universe... though I could be completely wrong.
 
  • #15
SW VandeCarr said:
Very fast response. I just wanted you to know I added one more sentence just after first posting: The principle objections (to an infinite universe) are philosophical, not scientific.

Could you elaborate on what types of philosophical objections there would be to an infinite universe, aside from "I don't like it that way?" Not saying you have such objections, just curious about what's being said.
 
  • #16
DocZaius said:
Could you elaborate on what types of philosophical objections there would be to an infinite universe, aside from "I don't like it that way?" Not saying you have such objections, just curious about what's being said.

Yes. The universe has never defined any infinite quality of itself in any way that we are yet aware of. So in actuality, assuming the universe could be infinite is the actual use of philosophy, not the other way around.
 
  • #17
Evolver said:
Yes. The universe has never defined any infinite quality of itself in any way that we are yet aware of. So in actuality, assuming the universe could be infinite is the actual use of philosophy, not the other way around.

I think assuming either way is philosophizing. On matters untestable by science, isn't it best to say "I don't know?" That is why I asked my original question. I can't think of any philosophical objection (on either side of the issue) that would hold any weight.
 
  • #18
DocZaius said:
Could you elaborate on what types of philosophical objections there would be to an infinite universe, aside from "I don't like it that way?" Not saying you have such objections, just curious about what's being said.

One of the consequences of an infinite universe is that's its populated by an infinite number of people just like us. Indeed, they can be identical copies of us. Each one of us has an infinite number of copies. What does that say about the autonomy of the individual? If you are an identical copy of another individual, not just a biological twin, but in every detail of your life including your history. memories parents, ect; then why isn't that person you? How are you distinguished from the other person? Does everyone's life repeat over and over again in some distant place?

If you think what I just said is whacko, I agree, but it is a consequence of infinity. In an infinite universe anything that can happen will happen, and will happen over and over again an infinite number of times!

Not being a philosopher. I don't know if this a valid objection, but I know that significant parts of philosophy as a discipline are devoted to the nature of the individual and the nature of existence.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
DocZaius said:
I think assuming either way is philosophizing. On matters untestable by science, isn't it best to say "I don't know?" That is why I asked my original question. I can't think of any philosophical objection (on either side of the issue) that would hold any weight.

In matter's unsure to science usually Occam's Razor is invoked, saying that if faced with many possibilities that lead to the same answer that the least complex should be taken until proven otherwise. It prevents unnecessary assumptions and cuts out non-important factors.

In this case, saying that the universe has never defined any infinite quantity thus far, so it's safe to assume it's not infinite, would be invoking Occam's Razor. Speculating that it's infinite (though always possible) is philosophy at this current time.
 
  • #20
Evolver said:
In matter's unsure to science usually Occam's Razor is invoked, saying that if faced with many possibilities that lead to the same answer that the least complex should be taken until proven otherwise. It prevents unnecessary assumptions and cuts out non-important factors.

In this case, saying that the universe has never defined any infinite quantity thus far, so it's safe to assume it's not infinite, would be invoking Occam's Razor. Speculating that it's infinite (though always possible) is philosophy at this current time.

Under what conditions would it be possible for the universe to even be able to define an infinite quantity that we could satisfactorily interpret?

From my viewpoint it seems that Occam's Razor would imply an interpretation of infinity, at the very least on the micro scale. There is no reason to believe that the fabric on the microscale isn't continuous. And if your objection is Planck length, my understanding (although it could be wrong) of Planck length is that despite its use in physics, it does not physically signify a "smallest possible distance"; which would imply that the universe is made of discrete parts.

My observation of what seems to be continuity everywhere (and that is enough for OR) suggests infinitesmall intervals and I invoke Occam's Razor in that sense.

My point being that I don't think OR favors either interpretation.
 
  • #21
DocZaius said:
Under what conditions would it be possible for the universe to even be able to define an infinite quantity?

From my viewpoint it seems that Occam's Razor would invoke an interpretation of infinity, at the very least on the micro scale. There is no reason to believe that the fabric on the microscale isn't continuous. And if your objection is Planck length, my understanding (although it could be wrong) of Planck length is that despite its use in physics, it does not physically signify a "smallest possible distance"; which would imply that the universe is made of discrete parts.

Well that's my point. Infinity is a concept created by man to represent a thought he cannot comprehend. But it doesn't mean that it is a truth of the universe. The universe doesn't care about infinity as much as man does ;) I think it's possible we are thinking about it in the wrong way.

Here is another post of mine that deals with the universe as something completely different than what we intuitively think: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=368284
 
  • #22
SW VandeCarr said:
Infinity is in fact a valid concept subject to rigorous treatment in set theory.

A rigorous treatment in set theory? I am not impressed. Should I be over-awed by that statement?
 
  • #23
debra said:
I find Pi is very interesting in that it appears never to be fully defined. There is a philosophical reason that must be so.
Ack, I can't believe I missed this. What could you possibly mean by that assertion? Or are you doing something weird like confusing "well-defined number" with "number whose decimal expansion has finitely many nonzero digits"?
 
  • #24
Evolver said:
This is a flawed argument because what the concept "infinite" actually equates to in mathematics/physics is "undefined".
The concept of infinity is quite well-defined.

debra said:
I find Pi is very interesting in that it appears never to be fully defined. There is a philosophical reason that must be so.
Pi is also very well-defined. For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_formulas_involving_π. Just because there remain some open questions about pi (e.g., whether pi is normal) does not mean pi is not well-defined.
 
  • #25
DocZaius said:
There is no reason to believe that the fabric on the microscale isn't continuous. And if your objection is Planck length, my understanding (although it could be wrong) of Planck length is that despite its use in physics, it does not physically signify a "smallest possible distance"; which would imply that the universe is made of discrete parts.

Then what do you do with the force is proportional to 1/r problem? Implying infinite forces.
Infinities problems dog physics - they have no answer. Or, let's introduce a cut-off because that is what experiment shows. To define small separations needs massive data chunks.
These data chunks - called metrics in physics - would need to go to infinity if space were continous. Sorry - space must be discrete at the micro level.
 
  • #26
D H said:
The concept of infinity is quite well-defined.Pi is also very well-defined. For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_formulas_involving_π. Just because there remain some open questions about pi (e.g., whether pi is normal) does not mean pi is not well-defined.

Infinity is only well defined in that is is a way to represent an idea that cannot be comprehended. It has no other purpose than a place holder for that abstract thought. The universe itself has given no concrete example of any infinite part of itself other than as an abstract placeholder in mathematical equations.
 
  • #27
Hurkyl said:
Ack, I can't believe I missed this. What could you possibly mean by that assertion? Or are you doing something weird like confusing "well-defined number" with "number whose decimal expansion has finitely many nonzero digits"?

OK my exact math definitions may be lacking. I do information science nowadays. But I meant "number whose decimal expansion has finitely many nonzero digits"
I assume Pi has an infinite number of non-zero digits to be philosophically consistent - in a sense.
 
  • #28
What I am trying to say is that a curve cannot be a true representation where space is discrete can it? At a micro micro level there is no 'curve' at all. Think of it as pixelated if you want an easy mind picture. So there can in reality be no such entity as a curve. It can only be curved to so many degrees of precision. Again, at heart, its an infinity problem yet again isn't it? Is space continuous - I say no! There is a philosophical problem with a so-called curve - it is better thought of as a summation of steps.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
debra said:
What I am trying to say is that a curve cannot be a true representation where space is discrete can it? At a micro micro level there is no 'curve' at all. Think of it as pixelated if you want an easy mind picture. So there can in reality be no such entity as a curve. It can only be curved to so many degrees of precision. Again, at heart, its an infinity problem yet again isn't it? Is space continuous - I say no! There is a philosophical problem with a so-called curve - it is better thought of as a summation of steps.

So your argument is that for spacetime to be continuous, that would mean that infinity would be involved. And therefore it can't be. Why can't infinity be involved at scales we cannot measure? Why is that a logical impossibility? As far as I know the quantization of spacetime is still a postulate and is actively researched. Also, the calculus summation of infinitesmall intervals is a mathematical tool. It does not prove or disprove the physicality of a discrete spacetime.
 
  • #30
debra said:
A rigorous treatment in set theory? I am not impressed. Should I be over-awed by that statement?

What's your point? Who cares if you're impressed or not?'
 
  • #31
This discussion is going in the wrong direction. It's not that there is no infinity in Nature, quite the opposite. The question is why we see discrete objects that we label with integers?

Everything in nature is in fact infinite, the wavefunction of every single object in the universe is soaked in around it to infinity(consequence of SE; you could also think of it as it's represented in QFT - fields vs partilces). The real question is why we see single laptops, single cats, single everything, which is the heart of the measurement problem. We are inferring that "objects" are not infinite based on how we perceive them, not how they truly are, apart from our perception of them. Our perception is incredibly flawed and at odds with most everything that has come out of physics in the last 100 years.
The only way around 'infinity-discreteness' is to solve the MP. The solution may turn everything we have assumed so far upside down.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
DocZaius said:
So your argument is that for spacetime to be continuous, that would mean that infinity would be involved. And therefore it can't be. Why can't infinity be involved at scales we cannot measure? Why is that a logical impossibility? As far as I know the quantization of spacetime is still a postulate and is actively researched. Also, the calculus summation of infinitesmall intervals is a mathematical tool. It does not prove or disprove the physicality of a discrete spacetime.

A metric defines space-time in terms of x,y,z,t. Thus a particle (or field) knows its position in space-time or, simply stated, its distance away form another particle with which it interacts.
For space to be continuous the metric that defines it would have to be infinite precision. There must be a limit to the amount of data an interaction can process. That limit is a constant of the universe - in QFT we give it a cut-off distance. It must 'know' the separation and then act according to its algorithm for that interaction. So the algorithm must be using the separation metrics and as the separation becomes close to zero, the amount of data in that metric value becomes infinite. Of course, it cannot become infinite, so there is a cut-off or a discrete nature of space itself.
 
  • #33
WaveJumper said:
This discussion is going in the wrong direction. It's not that there is no infinity in Nature, quite the opposite. The question is why we see discrete objects that we label with integers?

Everything in nature is in fact infinite, the wavefunction of every single object in the universe is soaked in around it to infinity(consequence of SE). The real question is why we see single laptops, single cats, single everything, which is the heart of the measurement problem. We are inferring that "objects" are not infinite based on how we perceive them, not how they truly are, apart from our perception of them. Our perception is incredibly flawed and at odds with most everything that has come out of physics in the last 100 years.
The only way around 'infinity-discreteness' is to solve the MP. The solution may turn everything we have assumed so far upside down.

Interesting point. But the discreteness of large objects such as a laptop is an illusion. If the laptop were a single particle, it would only give a value when it was observed by a photon or other particle. If it is not being observed then it essentially does not exist in space-time. It only has a probability of being somewhere in its wave function envelope. What we think of as actually 'there' is an observation value. A quantum prepared particle going from A to B is described by a wave function. There is no record of the path it took from A to B, (it was the wave function, not the particle travelling) there are only values it gave when observed at A and then at B. Essentially the particle was a wave function in between and not actually 'existing' like we think a laptop exists. The wave function tells us where it would possibly have been if we had observed it.

The laptop is an illusion because there are mega-trillions of wave functions confined to, essentially, the volume of the laptop. They are firing off observations by the trillion but each is an observation of where a particle is when it is observed. The reality is that each particle is somewhere within its wave function envelope that is the same as one particle going from A to B as previously mentioned. The fact that we think the laptop is a discrete object is an illusion.Its a collection of observations. Not a single part of the laptop exists unless it is 'observed' by an interaction with another particle or external photon.

So the laptop is really observing end points of particles going from A to B (or confined in a stationary Heisenberg area). If we are not observing a particle then there is no location for it. And an observation is simply a value returned at one particular instant to an enquirer.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
WaveJumper said:
This discussion is going in the wrong direction.

It certainly is. To begin with, the OP was a about an imaginary hotel: just in case some people didn't understand that. The discussion of real physical infinity is off topic and in any case, not an issue that can be definitively addressed by current science in terms of whether spacetime is infinite at the smallest or largest scales.

The subject was infinite sets, a purely mathematical concept. If you want to argue that a mathematical argument is flawed, then you have to argue from a mathematical perspective. Even grade school children that I teach as a volunteer understand that.

Perhaps some people thought an infinite hotel was real. Well if was, it could blow out the competition by charging really low prices.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
SW VandeCarr said:
It certainly is. To begin with, the OP was a about an imaginary hotel: just in case some people didn't understand that. The discussion of real physical infinity is off topic and in any case, not an issue that can be addressed by current science.

The subject was infinite sets, a purely mathematical concept. If you want to argue that a mathematical argument is flawed, then you have to argue in terms of a mathematical context. Even grade school children that I teach as a volunteer understand that.

Perhaps some people thought an infinite hotel was real. Well if was, it could blow out the competition by charging really low prices.

I think the confusion most likely arose when the question (purely mathematical in nature, as you say) was asked in the context of real life entities (those of a hotel and it's rooms.)

If your argument is that it must be discussed only in mathematical contexts such as infinite sets, I don't think a hotel is the best way to illustrate that because it can only be thought of as a physical entity with real-world limitations, and thus the discussion of the nature of infinity as a real world property was inevitable. I'm sure your grade school students would agree.
 
<h2>1. Can a hotel with infinite rooms ever be full?</h2><p>No, a hotel with an infinite number of rooms can never be full. This is because infinity is a concept that represents something without an endpoint, so there will always be an available room for someone to stay in.</p><h2>2. How can a hotel have an infinite number of rooms?</h2><p>In mathematics, infinity is a concept that represents a quantity without an endpoint. In this scenario, it means that the hotel has an unlimited number of rooms, with no limit to how many rooms can be added.</p><h2>3. Would a hotel with infinite rooms be able to accommodate an infinite number of guests?</h2><p>Yes, a hotel with infinite rooms would be able to accommodate an infinite number of guests. This is because infinity has no limit, so there will always be enough rooms for all the guests.</p><h2>4. How would the hotel handle reservations and room assignments in an infinite room scenario?</h2><p>In an infinite room scenario, the hotel could use a mathematical approach to assign rooms to guests. For example, they could use a system of prime numbers to assign rooms, where each prime number represents a unique room.</p><h2>5. Are there any practical applications for a hotel with infinite rooms?</h2><p>While a hotel with infinite rooms may seem like a hypothetical scenario, it could have practical applications in the world of mathematics and theoretical physics. It could also be used as a thought experiment to explore the concept of infinity and its implications.</p>

1. Can a hotel with infinite rooms ever be full?

No, a hotel with an infinite number of rooms can never be full. This is because infinity is a concept that represents something without an endpoint, so there will always be an available room for someone to stay in.

2. How can a hotel have an infinite number of rooms?

In mathematics, infinity is a concept that represents a quantity without an endpoint. In this scenario, it means that the hotel has an unlimited number of rooms, with no limit to how many rooms can be added.

3. Would a hotel with infinite rooms be able to accommodate an infinite number of guests?

Yes, a hotel with infinite rooms would be able to accommodate an infinite number of guests. This is because infinity has no limit, so there will always be enough rooms for all the guests.

4. How would the hotel handle reservations and room assignments in an infinite room scenario?

In an infinite room scenario, the hotel could use a mathematical approach to assign rooms to guests. For example, they could use a system of prime numbers to assign rooms, where each prime number represents a unique room.

5. Are there any practical applications for a hotel with infinite rooms?

While a hotel with infinite rooms may seem like a hypothetical scenario, it could have practical applications in the world of mathematics and theoretical physics. It could also be used as a thought experiment to explore the concept of infinity and its implications.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
937
Replies
73
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
2K
Replies
69
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
317
Back
Top