Parrallel Universes exist?

[OmegaDragon]

Well according to Dr David Deutsch from Oxford University, yes they do.


http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif Parallel universes exist - study
http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif Sep 23 11:33 PM US/Eastern

http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif

Parallel universes really do exist, according to a mathematical discovery by Oxford scientists described by one expert as "one of the most important developments in the history of science".

The parallel universe theory, first proposed in 1950 by the US physicist Hugh Everett, helps explain mysteries of quantum mechanics that have baffled scientists for decades, it is claimed.

In Everett's "many worlds" universe, every time a new physical possibility is explored, the universe splits. Given a number of possible alternative outcomes, each one is played out - in its own universe.

A motorist who has a near miss, for instance, might feel relieved at his lucky escape. But in a parallel universe, another version of the same driver will have been killed. Yet another universe will see the motorist recover after treatment in hospital. The number of alternative scenarios is endless.

It is a bizarre idea which has been dismissed as fanciful by many experts. But the new research from Oxford shows that it offers a mathematical answer to quantum conundrums that cannot be dismissed lightly - and suggests that Dr Everett, who was a Phd student at Princeton University when he came up with the theory, was on the right track.

Commenting in New Scientist magazine, Dr Andy Albrecht, a physicist at the University of California at Davis, said: "This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science."

According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy nebulous "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time.

Observation appears to "nail down" a particular state of reality, in the same way as a spinning coin can only be said to be in a "heads" or "tails" state once it is caught.

According to quantum mechanics, unobserved particles are described by "wave functions" representing a set of multiple "probable" states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options.

The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes. Source (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paUniverse_sun14_parallel_universes&show_article=1&cat=0)

Discuss this "discovery"

I think its a bunch of bullshit to me...

[Caboose O'Malley]

Nice read, but it's still a bit fishy and doesn't have enough proof.

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking." - George Patton

[n00b1n8R]

I'd like to see where this discovery was published.

Though I don't really know enough about the subject to comment..

[Con]

I still don't get how the simple act of observing something causes a split in reality creating an alternate universe. That's saying that just with the power of our minds we can cause this split. What power is there? It's just a bunch of chemical reactions and electric signals.

[Pooky]

I read stuff about this before, but I don't think I'm psychologically prepared to accept it. I mean think about it, if this is true, then there's probably an alternate universe right now where you just got shot.

[Caboose O'Malley]

I read stuff about this before, but I don't think I'm psychologically prepared to accept it. I mean think about it, if this is true, then there's probably an alternate universe right now where you just got shot.

And? What would that affect you? It would be the OTHER you.
"The power of the mind", so to speak, is very powerful and some people can make themselves physically sick by just thinking, like for instance, if you really thought that you had lunge cancer, and I mean REALLY think that you'd have it, then there's a 33% higher chance for you to get it than a "normal" person...
I know that this strays a bit offtopic, but it was just an example of what the mind can do.

And why do you have to go through the alternatives (in your mind assuming) for a situation for it to become a real situation for a parallel universe? I think that the universe in its own way would calculate the different possibilities and then execute them in the different scenarios i.e. universes.

But I don't really believe in this, it's just a nice theory.

[Con]

"The power of the mind", so to speak, is very powerful and some people can make themselves physically sick by just thinking, like for instance, if you really thought that you had lunge cancer, and I mean REALLY think that you'd have it, then there's a 33% higher chance for you to get it than a "normal" person...
Source please? I don't believe that.

[Caboose O'Malley]

Believe what you want, I don't care...
You said earlier that the brains activity is just a bunch of neural impulses and chemical reactions - which I agree on - but many things in the world is based on as simple things as electricity or reactions between chemicals and/or objects.
Take for instance something as simple as water, H2O, it's composed of two completely different atoms, oxygen, and hydrogen, two very simple elements in the from of gas which when combined creates liquid water, one of the most important substances in the whole world - maybe in the (or this?) universe.

[DaneO'Roo]

Caboose O'Malley, are you a scientologist?

Also, this is complete bullshit. Science doesn't extend into everything. If something happens, it just happens. If there was a scientific relation to that, the only one i can think of is:

Figures and components of an occurence are gathered, and calculated only by those who think of the problem. Reactions happen, bunch of shit was the result, End of equation. New equation begins.

If you walked into the street and got accidentally hit by an out of control car, it was just a equation of time, speed of the movement of the car, and the speed you were walking at to get to that place of the meeting of "face and windshield". Other figures can come into that equation, like the speed of someone else's walking resulted in them bumping into you, momentarily interrupting your pace, and possibly, based on figures of time and speed could result in you NOT being hit.

But that's the only way I can see science being involved in something like this. Otherwise it just comes down to plain good or bad luck to me.

[rossmum]

Interesting, but could do with some firmer backing...

[Caboose O'Malley]

What the hell is a scientologist?
And also, why would you go and say that not everything is related to science? Sure, all the crap in human society that we've created for yourselves and that are consuming nature aren't maybe related to science. BUT everything relevant and important in this world or to this world (or should I say again universes?) (which does not include us and our crazy own world which is destroying this planet) are related to science in some way or another.
And there is no such thing as luck, just chaos and order.

[rossmum]

A very gullible/stupid person. You'd have to be to believe their crap.

It's probably the most recognised of the many utterly insane cults/minor religions in the world.

[Caboose O'Malley]

A very gullible/stupid person. You'd have to be to believe their crap.

It's probably the most recognised of the many utterly insane cults/minor religions in the world.

Oh, well it's retared.
Turning Science into religion is the same as turning a loaded gun into a toy for a child.

[n00b1n8R]

What the hell is a scientologist?

http://www.westsidetale.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/tom-cruise1.jpg
WHY HELLO THAR!

[rossmum]

It's not science, though. Not even close.

[Caboose O'Malley]

It's not science, though. Not even close.

What the hell is it then?
Also, n00b1n8R, lol

[Agamemnon]

It's not science, though. Not even close.
That's for damn sure. Do you know they blame psychiatry for the rise of Hitler and Stalin, World War 1, and the Holocaust? So damn hilarious. :lmao:


What the hell is it then?
A business opportunity.

[Caboose O'Malley]

Right.... I get what you're saying...

[Con]

Believe what you want, I don't care...
Whoa, you act as if I was calling you a liar. All I asked for was the source because I didn't believe it.


You said earlier that the brains activity is just a bunch of neural impulses and chemical reactions - which I agree on - but many things in the world is based on as simple things as electricity or reactions between chemicals and/or objects.
Take for instance something as simple as water, H2O, it's composed of two completely different atoms, oxygen, and hydrogen, two very simple elements in the from of gas which when combined creates liquid water, one of the most important substances in the whole world - maybe in the (or this?) universe.
Thanks for that 4th grade science lesson. Your point?

Chemical bonds in water don't have anything to do with using your mind power to give yourself cancer. Sure, water is important, but that's all relative. It doesn't have magical properties, nor does our brain --unless someone can prove that. That's why I want a source to your statistic, because right now it sounds like a bunch of hippy bullshit.

[n00b1n8R]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

that's all you need to know :lol:

[jahrain]

Lol, well I love the typical "Well according to quantum mechanics... <insert some nonsensical jargon> ...therefore... <insert lulz here>".

[Texrat]

So much for my alternative theory that they are actually Perpendicular.

[Texrat]

I still don't get how the simple act of observing something causes a split in reality creating an alternate universe. That's saying that just with the power of our minds we can cause this split. What power is there? It's just a bunch of chemical reactions and electric signals.

A distinct threshold exists between classical physics and quantum physics. At the classical level (what dictates reality to us) we assume we are beholden to the events and properties we directly experience. We take comfort in that; it is our foundation. Things are precise, finite, discreet. Physical.

But at the quantum level, all that breaks down. Hard-coded reality is superseded by probability, which isn't so absolute. Quantum mechanics says you aren't really here, now-- there's just a damn good probability you are (see also: Uncertainty Principle and Schroedinger's Cat). But there are only slightly lower probabilities that you are somewhere else, as well. Time is the dimension that helps fix you at the peak of probability. And that leads to the resolution of classical physical experience. Remember, at the quantum scale, there is no solidity. EVERYTHING is distilled down to packetized pieces of information.

It is certainly true that fixation of a quantum packet relies completely on observation, since information must be processed by something or someone to be rendered useful. Prior to observation it is in an indeterminate state. And yes, our observation does indeed determine the final state. Is it a wave or particle? Well, what do you expect it to be? That's your answer.

It's easy to say QM is "bullshit" or "magic", but really it's just our language for describing the mysterious foundation beneath classical physics. IMO it's the most fascinating topic going today. But a warning to anyone serious about getting into it: prepare to have your cage rattled. ;)

Oh, the easiest formula to learn here is jahrain = fail.

[OmegaDragon]

I still think there is no possible way to surely say that parallel universes exist, because if you were to somehow get into one of these universes, how could you prove that you were in it? It could have been a dream, but what if the dreams are interconnected with those parallel universes? Could it be that what happens in a dream is actually happening in another universe? or is it just our minds providing an image of what could had happen if what you were thinking of doing was made a reality? What if we are just another of those parallel universes where somewhere there is the original person who is the original me? What if our life is just a dream or somekind of MMORPG of somone else? The matter of just thinking of such a theory is too much to put into one single math equation stating that these types of universes exist, and will only create more questions. It will make everything we know about everything all messed up and possibly non-existent.

Not only that, but if one of these universes were created every time someone makes a decision, it would make about 1 billion
universes every .2 seconds times the number of decisions . Could it be that these universes are destroyed every once in a while? Who is to say that in the next 40 seconds our universe will randomly disappears, never to exist again?

[Texrat]

I still think there is no possible way to surely say that parallel universes exist, because if you were to somehow get into one of these universes, how could you prove that you were in it? It could have been a dream, but what if the dreams are interconnected with those parallel universes? Could it be that what happens in a dream is actually happening in another universe? or is it just our minds providing an image of what could had happen if what you were thinking of doing was made a reality? What if we are just another of those parallel universes where somewhere there is the original person who is the original me? What if our life is just a dream or somekind of MMORPG of somone else? The matter of just thinking of such a theory is too much to put into one single math equation stating that these types of universes exist, and will only create more questions. It will make everything we know about everything all messed up and possibly non-existent.

Not only that, but if one of these universes were created every time someone makes a decision, it would make about 1 billion
universes every .2 seconds times the number of decisions . Could it be that these universes are destroyed every once in a while? Who is to say that in the next 40 seconds our universe will randomly disappears, never to exist again?

There is no causal relation between your first 2 statements. Just because a person who enters a parallel universe *might* not be able to identify it as such does not mean they can't be proven. In addition, assuming memory remained intact, the interloper could recognize differences between his original universe and the one he entered.

Another thing to keep in mind is infinity. So what if billions of universal possibilities are spawned per second? Infinity can handle that.

Some theorize that split universes *may* merge again if the reason behind the split becomes fundamentally moot over time. That would be in cases where the split failed to have enough impact to sustain distinct universes. So you get a probability collape where the minor differences are reconciled... perhaps subtly, perhaps violently. Maybe certain mental lapses and/or deja vu could be explained by split universe reconciliation. This actually goes back to your first point: how would we know? In such a case we might not.

The bottom line is that proof of the concept is being approached mathematically, NOT philosophically. That's very important to discussions starting with "I think this is bullshit..." ;)

[beele]

Well I believe more in this theory.

Greater dimensions
It all started when superstring theory, hyperspace and dark matter made physicists realise that the three dimensions we thought described the Universe weren't enough. There are actually 11 dimensions. By the time they had finished they'd come to the conclusion that our Universe is just one bubble among an infinite number of membranous bubbles which ripple as they wobble through the eleventh dimension.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/pics/parallelunibubble.jpg
A creative touch
Now imagine what might happen if two such bubble universes touched. Neil Turok from Cambridge, Burt Ovrut from the University of Pennsylvania and Paul Steinhardt from Princeton believe that has happened. The result? A very big bang indeed and a new universe was born - our Universe. The idea has shocked the scientific community; it turns the conventional Big Bang theory on its head. It may well be that the Big Bang wasn't really the beginning of everything after all. Time and space all existed before it. In fact Big Bangs may happen all the time.
Of course this extraordinary story about the origin of our Universe has one alarming implication. If a collision started our Universe, could it happen again? Anything is possible in this extra-dimensional cosmos. Perhaps out there in space there is another universe heading directly towards us - it may only be a matter of time before we collide.

More to come, I heard this theory in school before, and am now looking for more info.

[Texrat]

There's no conflict between the 2 theories, beele.

[beele]

I'm not saying that they are conflicting. If I need to pick a theory I would go for the one I posted.

Here are some more resources for you guys.

Be warned get some ice to put on your head cause it could get hot there trying to understand everything. Some things are very, very complicated.

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/
http://www.mkaku.org/
http://fisica.usac.edu.gt/public/curccaf_proc/quevedo1/

Last link contains lots of formulas and stuff if you do some clicking.

[Texrat]

I'm not saying that they are conflicting. If I need to pick a theory I would go for the one I posted.

I guess I still don't get it, but no biggie.

[Jelly]

I'm always fascinated by quantum mechanics, but I'm not educated enough to understand much about it. Things like "A particle must be observed for it to exist in that place" are awesome, but I've never understood why. All I know is that's the way it is.

Interesting theory on parallel universes, which seems to fit in with a lot of what has been said here with regards to quantum mechanics.

[Texrat]

Things like "A particle must be observed for it to exist in that place" are awesome, but I've never understood why.

Nobody really does.

[Jelly]

That makes it awesomer.

[beele]

Well why do people in chemistry speak of the 90&#37; Chance of meeting an electron in an orbit around the atom core, because we can't see it. It's all mathematically figured out, and we need to accept it as it is till proven otherwise.

But those things about the universe are so much more difficult then an atom, so my guess is that it might take many, many years before it's all figured out.

[Neuro Guro]

-

[thehoodedsmack]

^ Or it could be nonsense. Regardless, your ideas are fun to think about.

[Neuro Guro]

qU1fixMAObI

[Tweek]

4 dimensions is pretty easy, 5 is still managable, 6 is where i start getting lost in general.

i've always been gifted with understanding of complex stuff like this.
i once read a book about quantum mechanics and timetravel. it wasnt really timetravel, but more travel to a parralel universe wich was at the point of time where you wanted to travel to. i can understand that pretty easy.

also, that video, pretty much explained WHY simply observing it, settles the subatomic stuff talked about before.

[Dr Nick]

I got lost at 6 too, but after watching it to the end, it's basically talking about
instant travel through dimensions, I think.

Then it basically repeats, but on a much larger scale.

[Kybo_Ren]

That article isn't entirely truthful. The parallel universe theory doesn't say that a motorist with a near miss will spawn a new universe where he is hit. That's a lot like saying since an individual quantum particle like a muon could be in two places at once that an elephant could be in two places at once. Or since that muon has a chance of passing through a barrier, that elephant can eventually teleport past its cage.

Yeah, those events certainly are possible, but they're insanely improbable.

[CN3089]

I think most of you don't understand much beyond the 3rd or 4th dimension.

Here, watch this and then rethink what you thought before.

qU1fixMAObI

this is so so wrong

[Emmzee]

I hope there's an alternate universe somewhere where I didn't read this terrible thread.

[n00b1n8R]

this is so so wrong

why?

[jahrain]

I still don't get what makes this a "discovery"... What new information or observation was obtained now that wasn't known before?

[n00b1n8R]

I think the theory was applied to some anomolys with quantum physics for the first time and it filled some gaps.

[ExAm]

Right on the level with "What the Bleep do We Know?"
Bullshit, in my opinion.

[beele]

I get the picture what they are telling in the video. But some things are still hard to get:embarrassed:.

[Reaper Man]

Right on the level with "What the Bleep do We Know?"
Bullshit, in my opinion.
I loved that documentary. :saddowns:

[ExAm]

I loved that documentary. :saddowns:yes it was awesome, but what it's trying to tell you is bullshit.

[n00b1n8R]

why?

[Caboose O'Malley]

why?

The simplest, yet most powerful question in the world.

[Texrat]

I still don't get what makes this a "discovery"... What new information or observation was obtained now that wasn't known before?

It was explained in the article.

[Chewy Gumball]

They didn't really explain the 6th dimension very well in that video did they? Its just everything else that could have happened with the start of our universe to a possible end of our universe.

Just think, theres at least one alternate universe were you live forever, and at least one where you don't exist at all.

[4RT1LL3RY]

Bravo people, a thread that my sig can live in. Ah quantum mechanics, breath in that sweet mind blowing facts. If any one says to get a smaller signiture, then screw you.

[rossmum]

I tried that in Physics. Ran at the door, failed :p

[CN3089]

They didn't really explain the 6th dimension very well in that video did they? Its just everything else that could have happened with the start of our universe to a possible end of our universe.

Just think, theres at least one alternate universe were you live forever, and at least one where you don't exist at all.

protip: all the extra dimensions predicted by m-theory are spatial, none of that dimensions made up of universes crap

[Caboose O'Malley]

I tried that in Physics. Ran at the door, failed :p

lol, reminds me of The Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy....

[kungpow]

"If you think you understand quantum theory.....you don't understand quantum theory"

[nooBBooze]

In a paralel universe sowjet russia paradoxes you!
wait..
do sowjet russia jokes even work in paralel universes?
do they even work in THIS universe?
my brain is tired.[/ralph]

[Chewy Gumball]

protip: all the extra dimensions predicted by m-theory are spatial, none of that dimensions made up of universes crap

But we are talking about the parallel universe theory now aren't we?

[Texrat]

do sowjet russia jokes even work in paralel universes?

Who cares? Just the transliteration of soviet into sowjet is funny enough.

I'm thinking that means pigs fly, right?

[n00b1n8R]

Bravo people, a thread that my sig can live in. Ah quantum mechanics, breath in that sweet mind blowing facts. If any one says to get a smaller signiture, then screw you.

owned.


protip: all the extra dimensions predicted by m-theory are spatial, none of that dimensions made up of universes crap

linkys please.

[Texrat]

linkys please.

Google please. :p

[nooBBooze]

Who cares? Just the transliteration of soviet into sowjet is funny enough.

I'm thinking that means pigs fly, right?
XP
Stop pwning, mister.
NOW
EDIT: rep and cookies will be given to you later on
EDIT:reconsidering the cookies

I wonder what the flat eartheners would have to say about this.

[n00b1n8R]

we could allways go over there and ask :downs: (http://www.alaska.net/&#37;7Eclund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)

[jahrain]

XP
Stop pwning, mister.
NOW
EDIT: rep and cookies will be given to you later on
EDIT:reconsidering the cookies

I wonder what the flat eartheners would have to say about this.
They are 3 dimensional creatures who think they are 2 dimensional creatures therefore the earth seems like a flat plane to them because they ignore the 3rd dimension.

[n00b1n8R]

I wonder if they ever jump >__>

[Texrat]

They are 3 dimensional creatures who think they are 2 dimensional creatures therefore the earth seems like a flat plane to them because they ignore the 3rd dimension.

I realize you are jesting, good sir, but an article a while back in Scientific American asked the question, "Is the universe holographic?" In other words, is our 3d-ness simply a projection?

The essential test is: quick, which object can contain more points, a circle or sphere?

:evil:

[Con]

Once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?
LOL

[rossmum]

What a bunch of downers

[Phobias]

Once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?



ROFL!!

Fucking funny...they have no clue.

[jahrain]

The essential test is: quick, which object can contain more points, a circle or sphere?

:evil:
Both of them can because the amount is infinite and infinite quantities don't have greater than or less than properties to them. :downs:

[Texrat]

Both of them can because the amount is infinite and infinite quantities don't have greater than or less than properties to them. :downs:

Bingo.

Since both can hold infinite theoretical points, that makes their volumes equivalent.

That drives the mathematicians nuts.

[Con]

Hey Texrat, I think I saw you on the highway today...I didn't see your face, but I saw your license plate, "790-FEH"

[Texrat]

Hey Texrat, I think I saw you on the highway today...I didn't see your face, but I saw your license plate, "790-FEH"

That's the evil me from a parallel universe. Bastard. He knows if we get too close together we destroy both of our universes!

[Chewy Gumball]

Both of them can because the amount is infinite and infinite quantities don't have greater than or less than properties to them. :downs:

The sphere has all the points in the circle plus more though, even though they have an infinite number of points in them, the sphere has more.

[jahrain]

The sphere has all the points in the circle plus more though, even though they have an infinite number of points in them, the sphere has more.

But for any amount 'N' of points you can define in a sphere, you can define that same 'N + 1' amount of points in the circle.

[Roostervier]

The sphere has all the points in the circle plus more though, even though they have an infinite number of points in them, the sphere has more. That's why Texrat said it drives the mathematicians crazy; it looks like it would hold more points, but that can't be proven because numbers don't back that theory up. Look at Jahrain's above post.^

[Chewy Gumball]

I'm sure it can be proven that a sphere has more points than a circle. I'm not exactly sure how to explain what I am thinking of here. A circle is just a cross section of a sphere. So if theres an infinite amount of points in that cross section, there has to be even more than that in the whole sphere. If that make sense.

Another way to look at it is this: There is an infinite amount of points on both the tip of a pin and on the tip of your finger, however you know your finger is bigger. Does that make them have the same volume? No, I do not think it does.

Going back to what Texrat said, " Since both can hold infinite theoretical points, that makes their volumes equivalent."

How can it make their volumes equivalent when a circle doesn't have volume, only area?

[jahrain]

I'm sure it can be proven that a sphere has more points than a circle. I'm not exactly sure how to explain what I am thinking of here. A circle is just a cross section of a sphere. So if theres an infinite amount of points in that cross section, there has to be even more than that in the whole sphere. If that make sense.

Another way to look at it is this: There is an infinite amount of points on both the tip of a pin and on the tip of your finger, however you know your finger is bigger. Does that make them have the same volume? No, I do not think it does.

Going back to what Texrat said, " Since both can hold infinite theoretical points, that makes their volumes equivalent."

How can it make their volumes equivalent when a circle doesn't have volume, only area?
The problem is that infinite quantities don't have less than, greater than or equivalent properties. Thats why they are infinite (uncountable). You can use the same comparison to ask which 2 real number has more numbers in between them, 0 to 1, or 0 to 100? The best way I can think of to define an infinite quantity is to consider this equation. if x = x + 1 then x is an infinite value.

[Chewy Gumball]

Well than that question proves nothing because there's an infinite number of points in anything you want to compare.

I don't believe for a second that infinite quantities don't have less than greater than or equivalent properties. They have them when comparing to other infinite quantities, not finite ones.

[Texrat]

I'm sure it can be proven that a sphere has more points than a circle.

How can it make their volumes equivalent when a circle doesn't have volume, only area?

No, it can't be proven. Jahrain is correct in every way.

And your last question exposes the real craziness. I was simplifying, true, but the point is there seems to be no real difference between area and volume as far as infinity is concerned.

http://www.crystalinks.com/holouniverse1.html


Well than that question proves nothing because there's an infinite number of points in anything you want to compare.

I don't believe for a second that infinite quantities don't have less than greater than or equivalent properties. They have them when comparing to other infinite quantities, not finite ones.

No, they don't. You can't add infinities. Nor subtract, multiply or divide. However, a circle and sphere contain the same number of theoretical points: infinite.

[jahrain]

No, they don't. You can't add infinities. Nor subtract, multiply or divide. However, a circle and sphere contain the same number of theoretical points: infinite.
Actually, you can do several operations with infinities, assuming your not dealing with real numbers. For example ∞ + ∞ = ∞, n/∞ = 0, ∞ + n = ∞, ∞ - n = ∞ (where n is some finite value). Usually these operations are done in calculus problems dealing with limits and integrals.

Just for something interesting to think about, with the relation of area to volume, an object can have a finite volume, yet have infinite area. See Gabriell's horn. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel&#37;27s_Horn)

[Chewy Gumball]

That article made my head hurt. I can't read stuff like that, I need pictures! Those pictures were so small, I don't think you could even read them even if you wanted too.

If you have an infinite quantity x, and you add it to itself, you get an infinite quantity twice as big as x was. They are both infinite, but x is half as, I don't want to say big here cause its not big but I don't think theres a word to describe it so I guess I have to, big as x+x.

I think the difference here is that you think all infinite quantities are just infinite and thats that, while I... don't. I don't know what to call it. The closest I can think of describing is this:

You have a circle x with an area of 2cm squared. You have a second circle y with an area of 4cm square. x<y

Now, if you think of x as all its infinite points, and y as all its infinite points, is x still < y? I think so, you don't.

EDIT:

I did some googling and I found an explaination

"One should note that these arguments show there's no such thing as a number system with a single "infinity" concept. But there's nothing to stop us constructing a number system containing "infinitely large numbers" which are bigger than all the usual numbers; it's just that there would have to be many of them and no single one of them could be called "infinity"."

from http://www.math.utoronto.ca/mathnet/answers/infnotnumber.html

[jahrain]

You have a circle x with an area of 2cm squared. You have a second circle y with an area of 4cm square. x<y

Now, if you think of x as all its infinite points, and y as all its infinite points, is x still < y? I think so, you don't.

x would still be infinite, y would still be infinite, and neither of them would be larger than the other, and visa-versa. The area of each would be indeterminant if all you had was the amount of points in each circle (which are both infinite). For example, take an infinite amount of points and place them all infinitely close together to form a circle. Tell me whats the area of that circle? (hint, it can be a finite number)

[Chewy Gumball]

"I think so, you don't."

y's number of points would still be "larger" than x's.

[jahrain]

"I think so, you don't."

y's number of points would still be "larger" than x's.
But like my post said before, for any n amount of points in y, you could define n + 1 amount of points in x. Infact, for any n amount of points in y, you could define 2*n amount of points in x. Using the same fallacy in the argument, I could show than even though circle y is 2 times as big as circle x, x could have 2 times as many points by pairing every 1 point in y with 2 points from x because they both have an unlimited amount of points to pick from.

[Emmzee]

Is this thread about parallel universes anymore?

[Texrat]

Actually, you can do several operations with infinities, assuming your not dealing with real numbers. For example ∞ + ∞ = ∞, n/∞ = 0, ∞ + n = ∞, ∞ - n = ∞ (where n is some finite value). Usually these operations are done in calculus problems dealing with limits and integrals.

Just for something interesting to think about, with the relation of area to volume, an object can have a finite volume, yet have infinite area. See Gabriell's horn. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel&#37;27s_Horn)

The point was that the operations are essentially meaningless. So I add 2 infinite sets. Nothing changed.

And yes I oversimplified the area/volume bit. That was a sidebar in the original article for purpose of illustration. The part that made Chewy's head spin is the meat of the matter.

For another example, google the hotel with infinite rooms: all are full, and a guest arrives looking for a room... ;)

[Chewy Gumball]

But like my post said before, for any n amount of points in y, you could define n + 1 amount of points in x. Infact, for any n amount of points in y, you could define 2*n amount of points in x. Using the same fallacy in the argument, I could show than even though circle y is 2 times as big as circle x, x could have 2 times as many points by pairing every 1 point in y with 2 points from x because they both have an unlimited amount of points to pick from.

If you stuck y on top of x on a grid with infinitely small units, and you paired the points in x to the ones that have the same coordinates as in y, you would have left over points in y. Even though you have an infinite number of points in x, y matches it and still has more.

[Texrat]

As long as both are infinite sets, they are equal. There is no such thing as adding any finite numbers to an infinite set to get more.

[Chewy Gumball]

I'm not adding finite numbers, I'm adding another set of infinite points. Its not like theres a finite amount of extra points outside x but inside y. I'm sure you already knew that though.

[jahrain]

I'm not adding finite numbers, I'm adding another set of infinite points. Its not like theres a finite amount of extra points outside x but inside y. I'm sure you already knew that though.

Let me find a way to get you to understand this. You could add up and infinite amount of infinite sets together, and guess what you end up with? An infinite set. You cannot measure or count the size of an infinite set, which is why by definition they are infinite therefore you can't tell if one is larger than the other. I will repeat this over and over as many times.

Think of a set of all real numbers. There is an infinite amount of numbers between every whole number, and there is an infinite amount of decimal numbers and between each decimal number is another infinite amount of infinitely small numbers. You can keep adding together infinite amounts of something only to end up with the same thing. With your circles now, there is an infinite amount of points between each point, an infinite amount of points between each one of those points, and theres and infinite amount of points in your circles.

If you want to have some fun with defining infinite numbers, think of a number with infinitely repeating digits after the most significant digit. For example 20000000....... or 199999999..... or 9999999........ Now try to compare one with the other to see which one is bigger. You might think that 1900000000....... is larger than 18000000000.... (if you look only at the (190...) and the 180....) , but what if you only looked at the (1800....) and compared it to (190....)? Which one looks bigger now? You could never tell which one is larger because all of them still have infinitely repeating digits making them an infinitely large number.


For another example, google the hotel with infinite rooms: all are full, and a guest arrives looking for a room... ;) Good gawd, my calc1 professor drilled that concept into our heads. Every guest shifts over one room, making room for the new guest. The question I always raised was where does the guy on the other end of the hotel in the last room (the infinith room) go?

[Chewy Gumball]

I'm not saying theres not an infinite amount of points, I'm saying the bigger circle contains more points than the smaller one. All the points in the smaller circle have a corresponding point in the bigger one, but those points only take up part of the space of the bigger circle. The rest of the space has another set of infinite points that the smaller circle doesn't have. Therefore, the bigger circle has more points.

[jahrain]

I'm not saying theres not an infinite amount of points, I'm saying the bigger circle contains more points than the smaller one. All the points in the smaller circle have a corresponding point in the bigger one, but those points only take up part of the space of the bigger circle. The rest of the space has another set of infinite points that the smaller circle doesn't have. Therefore, the bigger circle has more points.
Another fallacy in your argument is that a point does not take up any amount of space because it has no dimension. Essentially, every point has 0 area, 0 length, and 0 width. You can take every point in the larger circle, and fit it in between any 2 points in the smaller circle.

[Chewy Gumball]

That disproves that they have the same volume because they can both hold an infinite amount of points (post 72 in case you want to find it again). Not sure about my argument. It is possible, but I'm not positive. I think that only says there is no way to say that x is bigger than y by the number of points you can define in either one.

[jahrain]

A 2 dimensional circle has 0 volume regardless of how big the circle is, therefore 2 circles of 2 different sizes will have the same volume, which is 0.

[rossmum]

Good gawd, my calc1 professor drilled that concept into our heads. Every guest shifts over one room, making room for the new guest. The question I always raised was where does the guy on the other end of the hotel in the last room (the infinith room) go?
...But there is no last room, so there is no guy in the 'last room' as it doesn't exist.

:mindfuck:

[Chewy Gumball]

A 2 dimensional circle has 0 volume regardless of how big the circle is, therefore 2 circles of 2 different sizes will have the same volume, which is 0.

As Texrat said previously.


And your last question exposes the real craziness. I was simplifying, true, but the point is there seems to be no real difference between area and volume as far as infinity is concerned.


You proved him wrong, or your statement is wrong. I happen to believe your statement is correct.

EDIT: I jumped ahead of you I guess. I was referring to Texrat's question about spheres and circles, and how that, because they can hold the same amount of points, they have the same volume.

What you said about a point having no dimensions just makes it so you can't compare the size (length, area, volume) of two or more things by the amount of points you can define in them.

[Texrat]

I'm not saying theres not an infinite amount of points, I'm saying the bigger circle contains more points than the smaller one. All the points in the smaller circle have a corresponding point in the bigger one, but those points only take up part of the space of the bigger circle. The rest of the space has another set of infinite points that the smaller circle doesn't have. Therefore, the bigger circle has more points.

No.

The point count is infinite. This implies no measureable size. Just as there are infinite fractional numbers between the discrete numbers 1 and 2, 2 and 3, et al, there is no limit to the points that can fill a circle's area so regardless of size they are all infinite in capacity.

Besides, again, that was the overly simplistic example for the laymen. The real meat is in the portion of the article dealing with black holes and their capacity.


What you said about a point having no dimensions just makes it so you can't compare the size (length, area, volume) of two or more things by the amount of points you can define in them.

I can see where you would arrive at that, but...no.

[Chewy Gumball]

I was just saying your simplified version doesn't actually work out to the same thing.


There is the same number of fractional numbers between 1 and 2, as between 2 and 3. This number is an infinite number, cause you can't count to it. The number of fractional numbers between 1 and 3 is twice that number even though you can't count to it.

I don't think I will convince you that what I am saying is true, and I don't think you can convince me that what you are saying is true.

[Texrat]

There is the same number of fractional numbers between 1 and 2, as between 2 and 3. This number is an infinite number, cause you can't count to it. The number of fractional numbers between 1 and 3 is twice that number even though you can't count to it.

Um... still no. Adding 1 infinite set to another is still just infinity (which can't be quantified, which is why the addition fails). But you're probably right about the last statement: stalemate. ;)