In the law of physic nothing can be "created", it only changes its appearance.

Nothing is infinte, because even the Universe itself has an expiry date - which means everything in it will come to an end.

Then again the Universe would just start anew after it destroyed itself, but still everything that is "infite" right now will die/end/become limited.

No, you couldn't. Really big =/= infinite.

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/1110730_700b.jpg

Honestly it hurts my head to even think about this.. so I wont bother

Unbounded, not infinite

no [censored] sherlock

Mustaches created the universe?

That is a question best shaved for later.

You're aware of the other method of using Maths to prove stuff right?

Well it can be discussed if you just trim it down a bit.

I'll turn it around and maybe the question gets a little easier -not promising anything though..

How could there ever be boundaries to something (the universe)? -that exists beyond our scope of temporal understanding and into higher dimensions of possible and plausible existence (which is where time 'takes' us to)

Hence, if the universe isn't infinite, it's damn well near enough to being infinite to fit the bill as far as we can tell, which is why we round down equations after a while when we find ourselves behind the decimal point.

Find out where and when Pi becomes repetitive, and you'll find the boundaries to our visible universe.



And don't tell anyone I told you guys this

That's assuming that "activity" requires "time" in order to occur. What if it doesn't? What if time itself is actually an aberration, rather than the natural norm?

Where does all this 'infinity can't exist' stuff come from? Like, why shouldn't it exist?

Be careful with equating what seems 'natural' to you, to what can exist. It's quite simple to make a mathematical description of an infinite space. So, why shouldn't the Universe be infinite in extent?

For what it's worth, infinity seems natural to me. (Finite but unbound works fine too, although in that case the 'curling around' radius must be many times our horizon distance, or we'd see repeating patterns in the sky.)

As for 'infinite in time', we can talk about future-infinite (the Universe will exist infinitely far into the future) and eternal (no singularity at t=0 - what we call the Big Bang wasn't the actual beginning of time).

One thing we're sure of is that the Universe ain't static - there's just too much evidence pointing towards something like the Big Bang, i.e. a very compact and hot Universe at early times.

We can definitely 'wind back the clock' to the era of Big Bang nucleosynthesis (3-20 mins after the Big Bang) reasonably confidently, as the BBNS model predicts primordial elemental abundances very well.

Before then, our theories start breaking down, so what actually happened a few seconds (or microsecons, nanoseconds, depending on who you ask) is unsure. No current theory can predict what happened at energies higher than the Planck energy, so we don't know whether there was a singularity or not.

Infinite is used mainly as a theoretical term to describe something of unpercievably large space or period of time, or that we cannot tell exactly how large or it is growing at a certain speed and appears to be maintaining that speed. The universe is a perfect example of this. Also, it pertains along the lines of terms like "closed, isolated system". It does not physically exist, but it makes a great model because the math is much easier to do.

I think it's hard to imagine because the human brain is kind of geared toward defining things by their three dimensional boundaries. If you imagine reality as a mathematical pattern rather than something with three dimensions I think it's easier to imagine something that doesn't necessarily have a "beginning" or an "end."

Firstly, a more important question: Can a thread about metaphysical [censored] exist without getting religious?
-----
I'm with Unclellama on this one. There is absolutely no reason to believe that 'infinity' cannot exist. Any 'Laws' of the natural world are just our own interpretations based upon what we've only had the chance to observe. Just as the sun used to revolve around the world, so too can things be infinite without having a 'chicken or the egg' paradox.

Also, do not forget about gravity's effect upon time. Time passes by slower for the satellites around the Earth, and goes ever slower around more dense objects. If the universe began expanding from the 'bang', was the space not currently occupied by the universe affected by gravity or time? I don't think so. Time only exists, from the way I see it, upon objects. I think that here we have a case of 'Does a felled tree make a noise if no one is around to hear it?' and the answer here, in regards to time, is no.

Just my 2 cents.

I assume by something being infinite, you're talking about the universe. Now, when someone says the universe is infinite, what they mean is the matter expands in every direction indefinitely. This doesn't mean matter itself is infinite. For example, let's assume a series of five "5's" is all the matter in the universe. We can watch how the universe is infinite without matter being infinite.

55555 <- Let's assume this is just after the big bang. The entire universe and all of its matter is contained right here.

5 5 5 5 5 <- Let's assume this is present day, as you can see, the universe is clearly larger.

5..... 5...... 5..... 5..... 5 <- And this is the universe in another 10 billion years. Still expanding, indefinitely, with the same amount of matter. (Sorry, I don't seem to be able to make spacing appropriate on these forums)

As far as we can tell from evidence we currently have, this trend will continue for a long, long time, infinitely.

So that take care of both space and time (because as long as the universe keeps existing, time will as well.) let's explore matter and energy.

Known science tells us matter can be converted into energy and vice versa. In theory, this could continue forever. In practice, it's not so simple. You'd need a very specific kind of matter to turn into energy. And of course, to do this, it would take energy. We can observe this process by looking at the sun. The sun converts hydrogen into helium and exerts an immense amount of energy in the form of heat and light. Given the right circumstances, our sun could create heavier elements through the same process, at least until it collapses.

Fortunately, we have very smart people in the scientific community who theorize that all the matter that ever existed in the universe still does exist, either in another form of matter or in energy. Seeing as they're way smarter than I am, I'm inclined to believe them, even if it is all theoretical.

In conclusion, I'd say it's a safe bet to say that everything in the universe is infinite. Time will continue forever, space will expand forever, and destroying matter only changes it to energy, which still exists. An of course, in theory, anything that happens before or after this universe exists is irrelevant, always has been irrelevant and always will be irrelevant as it will have no effect on our space, time or matter.

(Stephen Hawking can explain all this and more in his book 'A Brief History of Time' or 'A Briefer History of Time'. I highly suggest reading both multiple times. They're very interesting and easy for us normal people to understand, even if it does take a few passes to sink in.)

I'll be honest, I often don't trust astrophysicists. Too many theories based upon theories based upon assumptions that are based upon something that is presumably factual. Making conclusions about the vast universe based on our own tiny scope just doesn't fly well with me.

I think it is hard for the human mind to even grasp what infinity means, it's just ridiculous how much infinity is. And if say, the universe is infinite, somewhere at this moment someone who is identical to you in every way is wondering about the same thing.

It's all just creating models to attempt to make it easier to understand systems. Astrophysicists typically don't speak on these subjects in absolute terms in my experience. I wouldn't trust any astrophysicist (or many other types of physicists) that believed they were nailing down truths rather than refining models. That would be simultaneously ignorant and arrogant.

That's the trick, though. Infinity isn't an amount or a distance (those concepts imply boundaries). It's just a projection of a pattern.

The only ones I've met in person are all too sure of themselves.

Interesting. The irony there is, of course, that Theoretical Physics has the word "theory" right there in the name. One would think that someone that considers themselves that bright would notice that.

Indeed. In attitude, they were more akin to math sorcerers.

It's possible that infinity does not exist, only near-infinity.

don't the first and second laws of thermodynamics disprove the universe infinitely existing..?