Integrating a physical quantity to infinity

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of integrating physical quantities to infinity in physics, particularly in electrostatics and quantum mechanics. Participants express concerns about the validity of this practice, given that the universe is not considered infinite in size, despite theories suggesting it may expand indefinitely. They acknowledge that while integrating to infinity simplifies calculations and often yields accurate results, it raises questions about the physical implications, especially in cosmological contexts. The conversation highlights that for many problems, such as normalizing wave functions, the difference between integrating to the observable universe's radius and infinity is negligible. Ultimately, the use of infinity in mathematical modeling is viewed as a practical tool that facilitates problem-solving in physics.
Visceral
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
This is something that has bothered me for some time, and I can't seem to find any threads on here about it. In a lot of my undergraduate courses in physics, we talk about integrating something physical to infinity. For example, in electrostatics, we talk about the work needed to assemble a collection of charges that we "brought in from infinity." Or in quantum, we integrate to infinity all of the time to satisfy probability (e.g. the normalization condition). As my quantum professor always says, "we integrate over all space," which is usually a sphere with infinite radius. I know we have to make approximations all of the time in physics, and I am fine with that, but this is one that to me doesn't seem valid with all that we know about the universe.

As far as I know, physicists don't think the universe is infinite in size. I have read, though, that the prevailing theory in cosmology is that the universe will probably expand forever. If that is the case, then I can see some validity in integrating space or time out to infinity. What do you guys think? I know this will probably make some of your eyes roll, because for all practical purposes, we can just do this math in order to get a very good approximation of something we are interested in.

Another thing that just occurred to me, is that concepts such as infinite mass or density (e.g. with black holes) is "not physical," yet considering interactions between matter and energy at infinite separation is?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It depends on the scale of the problem. If you're normalizing the wave function of an electron in a hydrogren atom, then what's the difference whether you integrate \int^{R_{\textrm{observable universe}}}_0 or \int^{\infty}_0? It won't make any possible detectable difference in your answer, and the fact is that infinity often simplifies the calculation greatly at almost no cost of accuracy.

It's a very useful mathematical tool, and often only a very slight idealization. There's no problem with it.
 
How small would the universe have to be to make a 1% difference in the solution to your integral? That would be an interesting problem to solve.
 
dipole said:
It depends on the scale of the problem. If you're normalizing the wave function of an electron in a hydrogren atom, then what's the difference whether you integrate \int^{R_{\textrm{observable universe}}}_0 or \int^{\infty}_0? It won't make any possible detectable difference in your answer, and the fact is that infinity often simplifies the calculation greatly at almost no cost of accuracy.

It's a very useful mathematical tool, and often only a very slight idealization. There's no problem with it.

Yes, I understand scenarios where it makes little differences such as the one you have described. But what about cosmological scales? I assume it's the same routine. You are right, there would never be any detectable difference, so in all practical purposes it's the most logical thing to do as it let's us easily do integrals that "prefer" to be integrated to infinity.
 
I think it's easist first to watch a short vidio clip I find these videos very relaxing to watch .. I got to thinking is this being done in the most efficient way? The sand has to be suspended in the water to move it to the outlet ... The faster the water , the more turbulance and the sand stays suspended, so it seems to me the rule of thumb is the hose be aimed towards the outlet at all times .. Many times the workers hit the sand directly which will greatly reduce the water...

Similar threads

Back
Top