Is Space-Time Finite or Infinite?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter laurence_white
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space-time
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the hypothesis that if space-time (S) is not infinitely divisible, then it cannot be infinite in extent. The argument posits that a finite smallest increment of space-time (s) necessitates an infinite amount of time (t∞) to achieve infinite extent. Consequently, at any given time (t), space-time S is definitively not infinite. The conversation also touches on concepts from quantum mechanics and causal set theory, asserting that a discrete universe with consistent physical laws contradicts the notion of infinite space-time.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of space-time concepts and their implications in physics.
  • Familiarity with quantum mechanics, particularly the concepts of quanta and quantum observables.
  • Knowledge of causal set theory and its relevance to space-time structure.
  • Awareness of Zeno's Paradoxes and their philosophical implications on infinity.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of quantum observables on the nature of space-time.
  • Study causal set theory and its application in modern physics.
  • Explore the relationship between Zeno's Paradoxes and contemporary discussions on infinity.
  • Investigate cosmological models that address the nature of the universe at the Big Bang.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, philosophers of science, and students of cosmology interested in the foundational questions surrounding the nature of space-time and infinity.

laurence_white
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
*note: I had this reviewed by a moderator before posting, so I hope you consider it appropriate to this forum.

Hypothetical proposition (of the form “if p, then q” – without asserting the truth of p or q):

If space-time S is not infinitely divisible, then space-time S cannot be infinite in extent.

Proof:

If space-time S is not infinitely divisible, then there exists a smallest possible increment of S, s. [The precise size of s does not matter; it only matters that it is finite.]

Since S is built from finite space-time components s, S requires an infinite amount of time (t∞) to become infinite in extent. [note that s is a space-time component, not simply a component of a geometric space.]

At any time t, we can assert that t∞ has not yet been reached (since t∞ is infinite).

Therefore, at any time t we can assert that space-time S is not infinite in extent.

Footnote: the number of dimensions of S (or equivalently, s) does not matter; it only matters that at least one is a time dimension.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
the smallest unit idea is already firmly established by the concept of quanta and quantum observables- as well by causal set mathematics and computation: a non-discrete system has infinite information and thus infinite entropy and thus infinite instability NO causality- if you observe a causal universe with consistent physical laws your world is discrete

however your conjecture on infinite space is a non-starter- there is no model of cosmology which requires or suggeststhat the universe at the Big Bang was finite- this is often confused- some mistakenly think the BB implies a finite point in which the universe expanded- but the BBonly deals with the finite area we observe today- THAT is the tiny point- but there is no reason to think that the universe wasn't http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.gif"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i am familiar with commuting/non-commuting observables, Hermitians, etc. i don't accept your proposed counter-argument. an infinite space-time, by definition, cannot appear at once. remember: this is not a space; it is a space-time.

but i am pleased to see someone thoughtful respond. thank you for challenging my idea. i hope to hear from you again.

regards.
 
Since S is built from finite space-time components s, S requires an infinite amount of time (t∞) to become infinite in extent.
Don't you need to prove that each s takes a positive time to be created/established/transversed? What if each (finite) s is "transversed" in "no time at all"? Then isn't t∞/0 = indeterminate?

Is this problem really different from any of Zeno's Paradoxes?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 146 ·
5
Replies
146
Views
10K