# Infinity.

Infinity.
Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
Question:
Can Infinity have concrete physical parameters?
============ .
Socratus

Most likely no because infinity is inherently ever-expanding. Something that is “infinity” is basically (blah)+1)+1)+1 and so on.

If infinity was a concrete number we would have defined it by now.

No.

Infinity is not concrete, it’s an abstract quantifier. The number “1” likewise has no concrete existence - it too is an abstract concept that can only ever apply to the concrete. There can only be “1 of something”, or “something that is infinite”.

Infinity applies to concrete things specifically only when they have no physical parameters. To have “infinity” is exactly to have no physical parameters.

Infinity as a noun, however, is only misleading. This word form is only for use in the abstract, such as in mathematics. Its use as a noun then makes it easy to mistake as something concrete, but the only reason it might be causing you or Physicists crisis is if you fall for such a mistake.

Infinity is Aether, Vacuum, Nothingness, Emptiness
The law number one:
Physics cannot live without Emptiness
The law number two:
The Emptiness isn’t emptiness
The law number three:
The fool won’t understand,
The ignorant won’t recognize
=.

Absolute Infinite is Aether, Vacuum, Nothingness, Emptiness
/ socratus /
microm2...@hotmail.com” wrote:
Infinity cannot be reached by counting or calculating.
It stands alone as the highest concept in math; the unlimited quantity
==.
Correct.
“Remember gentlemen, we have not proven
the aether does not exist, we have only proven we do not
need it (for mathematical purposes)”…
/ Einstein’s University of Leyden lecture of May 5, 1920. /
==.

Absolute Infinite is Aether, Vacuum, Nothingness, Emptiness,
Minkawski negative 4D continuum, Dirac’s sea,
Pseudo Euclidian space. . . .etc.
Different names but they have one formula: T=0K.
=====…

Does an Absolute Infinite Frame of Reference exist?
Hmm?
1.
The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe
( the cosmological constant / the critical density of Uuniverse)
is so small (the average density of all substance in the
Universe is approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3 ) that it cannot
‘close’ the Universe into sphere and therefore our Universe
as whole must be ‘open’, endless
2.
The Universe as whole is Empty.
But the Emptiness isn’t emptiness because it is filled with
dark matter and dark energy : ‘ 90% or more of the matter
in the Universe is unseen / dark.’
3.
Now (!) the physicists think that the Universe as whole
the Absolute Frame of Reference of the Universe is: T=2,7K .
( Nobel Prize in Physics 1978 for discovery
of cosmic microwave background radiation). (!)
It means the Universe as whole has negative parameter,
it is negative temperature, it is Kingdom of Coldness.
Only Minkowski spacetime continuum has negative parameter.
Therefore I say the Minkowski spacetime continuum is model of Vacuum.
The parameter T=2,7K is not constant. It is temporal.
In the future ( in the Future- ? ?) it will come to T=0K.
4.
What is a vacuum ?
The empty space between stars ( Galaxies )
Is this space really empty?
. . . . .
Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing
nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum
tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.
If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this
into particles, in line with E-Mc^2.
/ Book: Stephen Hawking. Pages 147-148.
5.
According to QED Electron in interaction with vacuum has
infinity parameters ( energy, mass …etc )
Physicists do not understand what to do with infinite sizes,
and therefore they have invented “a method of renormalization”,
The method of renormalization is a method
" to sweep the dust under the carpet." / Feynman./
6.
The concept of infinite/ eternal means nothing
to a scientists. They do not understand how they could
draw any real, concrete conclusions from this characteristic.
A notions of “more”, “less”, "equally, “similar” could not
be conformed to a word infinity or eternity.
The Infinity / Eternity is something, that has no borders,
has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity /eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
and cannot be considered in real processes.
Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
« If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.
But effect of infinity comes again and again and then
physicists say: that’ Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.’
Another example of physicist’s thinking:
’ If there’s nothing wrong with me then,
maybe there’s something wrong with the Universe.’
/ One PhD physicist ./

Does an Absolute Infinite Frame of Reference exist?
I say: this unthinkable Absolute Infinite Frame of Reference
has two physical parameters.
First: T= 0K,
Second: E= 0 (the lowest state of cosmic background energy).
===.
Hmm?
What to do with this Infinite Absolute Emptiness ?

" Remember gentlemen, we have not proven
the aether does not exist, we have only proven we do not
need it (for mathematical purposes)"…
/ Einstein’s famous University of Leyden lecture of May 5, 1920./
!!??
So ! What to do with this Infinite Absolute Emptiness ?
==========.
Best wishes.
========================…
P.S.
Infinite, unbounded, endless, never-ending ,unending,
perpetual, interminable, eternal, dateless, spaceless,
borderless . . .

• What do you read, Prince ?
• Words, words, words.

It is no matter how you call it.
The matter is:
How can Infinity be concrete?
===========.

I want to go back to my message
‘Does an Absolute Infinite Frame of Reference exist?’
and understand the situation better and deeper.
===========…
1
‘ 90% or more of the matter in the Universe is unseen / dark’
and the % of the visual matter in the Universe is few.
In other words: we have two (2) parallel Worlds –
Vacuum and Material / Physical.
Question:
What is interaction between these two ( 2) different Worlds?
2.
In the early existence of Universe its temperature was
T=2,7K – > T=0K. We live on the warm planet Earth.
Question:
How from the Kingdom of Coldness (T=2,7K – > T=0K )
the beautiful Earth was created?
3.
The Vacuum is not empty space.
Dirac wrote that ‘ virual particles – antiparticles ‘ live there.
The astrophysics write that ‘ dark matter/ energy’ exists there.
Question:
How can the ‘ virual particles – dark antiparticles ‘ become real?
4.
According to QED Electron in interaction with vacuum has
infinite parameters ( energy, mass …etc ).
First : it means that the Vacuum also has infinite parameter
or parameters.
Second: How in the Nature this infinite electron can become
real local physical parameters?
5.
In 1928 Dirac wrote that every elementary particle with
positive energy (+E=Mc^2 ) has its antiparticle with
negative energy (–E=Mc^2).
But in my opinion the first man who wrote about antiparticles
was Sommerfeld. In 1916 he wrote two ( 2 ) formulas for electron.
The formula of electron as: -e=hac and the formula of its
antiparticle as: +e=h
ac.
Question:
What is interaction between +e=hac and : -e=hac ?
What is interaction between +E=Mc^2 and –E=Mc^2 ?
Why sometimes E= Mc^2 can behavior as a ‘rest’ particle
and sometimes can be ‘active’ and can destroy cities like
Hiroshima and Nagasaki ? Why E= Mc^2 is so strange?
My conclusion:
The answers to these questions can be get only through
understanding the Vacuum.
===.
I.S.
=====================…

1. In an article about philosophers

school.maths.uwa.edu.au/~mike…er%20Sword.pdf

Mike Adler wrote: " When I was a child, of nine or ten years of age, a particularly sadistic schoolteacher posed the question: ‘What would happen if an irresistible force acted on an immovable object?’ My first response was that if the force was irresistible, then the object must move. ‘Ah,’ said the teacher, who had been here before, ‘but the object is immovable.’ I thought about this for three days with brief periods out for sleeping. Eventually I concluded that language was bigger than the universe, that it was possible to talk about things in the same sentence which could not both be found in the real world.”

1. How would a retired physics teacher, like myself, answer this question?

(a) First I would insist that before discussing something one should be sure that essential words (in a problem or question at hand) must mean the same thing to those who are involved. In fact, I did make this comment recently, during a talk with a historian. But the question was about a sociological term, communism, not about physical reality.

(b) We would probably agree that the “irresistible” and “immovable” stand for “exteremely large but finite.” Then I would refer to the Newton’s second law: F=m*a, where F is the only force acting on an object of mass is m, and where a stands for the aceleration. This law tells us that when F and m are exteremely large the acceleration of the resulting motion can be very small, very large, or anything between, depending on the values of F and m.

If Infinity is some kind of reality: what to do?
1.
Classic physics has infinity as conception of
Newtonian space and Newtonian time.
2.
Quantum theory meets with infinity.
3.
Cosmology occupied with infinity.
. . . etc . . . .
===.
About every part of physics occupied with concept ‘ infinity’.
But . . . Infinity is a irrational concept.
We cannot measure it. (!)
What to do?

I can say: God doesn’t exist because we cannot see him/ her /it,
touch him/ her/ it, hear or smell him /her/ it.
Millions will agree with this argument.
But in Physics I cannot say the Infinity doesn’t exist because
we cannot measure it…
Is it true, we cannot measure it, but it appears again and again
in many physical and mathematical problems.
In spit of my or your or physicists wish it appears again and again
because . . . because it is some kind of reality. (!)
What to do?

The answer can be only one: If we cannot escape
the concept ‘ Infinity’, if ‘ Infinity’ is some kind of reality,
then we must agree with it existence and find the ‘ hidden’
parameters of ‘ Infinity’ in Physics.

It seems, that the best role on this place can take
only two physical parameters: T= 0K and E= 0 = infinite
( the lowest state of cosmic background energy).

Maybe somebody will suggest another concrete physical
parameter or parameters?
========.
Best wishes.
========================…

Is infinity rational or irrational ?
Is infinity abstract or real ?
Actual infinity or potential infinity ?
Effectively infinite or passive infinite ?
Bad, unreasonable infinite or reasonable infinite ?
==.
Again and again Infinity appears in many physical
and mathematical problems.
I don’t say about mathematical infinity,
Does Physical Infinity exist ?
If it exist then:

1. What is connection between the infinity and the concreteness ?
2. What is connection between infinity and quality ?
3. How to explain the inconsistent character between the infinity
and the concreteness ?
===.

Part Physics:
Theoretical applications of physical infinity .
==.
This point of view does not mean that infinity cannot
be used in physics
. . . . . .
In quantum field theory infinities arise which need to be
interpreted in such a way as to lead to a physically meaningful
result, a process called renormalization .

However, there are some theoretical circumstances where
the end result is infinity.
One example is the singularity in the description of black holes.
Some solutions of the equations of the general theory of relativity allow
for finite mass distributions of zero size, and thus infinite density.
This is an example of what is called a mathematical singularity,
or a point where a physical theory breaks down.
This does not necessarily mean that physical infinities exist;
it may mean simply that the theory is incapable of describing
the situation properly.
Two other examples occur in inverse-square force laws of the
gravitational force equation of Newtonian gravity and
Coulomb’s law of electrostatics.
At r=0 these equations evaluate to infinities.
/ Part Physics:
Theoretical applications of physical infinity .
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity /

======================.

The play between infinity and finite .
1.
Can a finite space have infinite parameters ?
====.
I think the answer is ‘no’. Why?
Because to create our finite world
( for example: our planet Earth and the life on it)
the Nature needs limited numbers of constants.
They are the values that cannot be derived from theory
of creation. Any infringement of these physical ( magic)
constants doesn’t permit this creation. ( for example:
the changing of electron’s charge or mass of proton
doesn’t permit creation of atom )
These limited ( magic) numbers of constants that needed
for our creation surprised scientists.
( For example, biologists know about 100 ( hundred - ! ) kinds
of amino acids. But only 20 ( twenty - ! ) kinds of amino acids
are suitable to produce molecules of protein, from which all
different cells created on our planet.)
There are many other examples about limited numbers
of constants that need for creation micro and macro worlds.
What are these concrete limited physical parameters
for Unlimited Infinity ?
====.
2.
Can an Infinite space have finite parameters ?
==.
If Infinite Space has infinite parameters then it is some
kind of abstraction. If Infinite Space is some kind of reality
it must have finite parameters. Can we know them ?
Yes, we can understand them if we find the source of Creation.
3.
How the play between infinity and finite is going ?
Isn’t it strange that Infinite Space can give ( for example)
finite parameters for our Earth’s creation ?
Does it mean that Infinite Space have Consciousness ?
Is Infinite Space something Divine ?
Or maybe this process of creation and evolution was going
by chance ?
Puzzle: ‘ By Consciousness or by Chance ? ‘ or
‘By Consciousness and by Chance ?’
==.
=======.

Does God So Love the Multiverse?
/ By Don N. Page . /

Monotheistic religions such as Judaism and Christianity affirm
that God loves all humans and created them in His image.
However, we have learned from Darwin that we were not created
separately from other life on earth. Some Christians opposed Darwinian
evolution because it undercut certain design arguments for the
existence of God. Today there is the growing idea that the fine-tuned
constants of physics might be explained by a multiverse with
very many different sets of constants of physics.
Some Christians oppose the multiverse for similarly undercutting other
design arguments for the existence of God. However, undercutting
one argument does not disprove its conclusion.
Here I argue that multiverse ideas, though not automatically
a solution to the problems of physics, deserve serious consideration
and are not in conflict with Christian theology as I see it.
Although this paper as a whole is {\it addressed} primarily
to Christians in cosmology and others interested in the relation
between the multiverse and theism, it should be of {\it interest}
to a wider audience.
Proper subsets of this paper are addressed to other Christians,
to other theists, to other cosmologists, to other scientists,
and to others interested in the multiverse and theism.

Does God So Love the Multiverse?
/ By Don N. Page . /
arxiv.org/abs/0801.0246
==========================.

And I ask: Does God So Love the Infinity ?
===============.
Best wishes.
=====================.

infinity of what?? Is the quantity of matter infinite? then it is a physical paramater, it does not have it! But what else can be infinite than matter? If it is not matter then no it has no physical parameters.

==.
Infinity of what ?
Infinity of substance / continuum which is named
Vacuum, Nothingness, Emptiness.
And maybe you know that Emptiness isn’t emptiness.
===.

Does God So Love the Multiverse?
/ By Don N. Page . /
arxiv.org/abs/0801.0246

But we don’t know how many Multiverse God love.
Maybe infinite numbers .
===.

My question is: How did the idea of Multiverse arise?
It began in 1907 when Minkowski tried to understand
SRT and invented 4-D negative spacetime continuum
( some kind of multiverse ).
Nobody knows what Minkowski multiverse really is.
( you can see Minkowski multiverse in attachment)
#.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
said that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
Th. Kaluza agreed with Einstein and in 1921 tried
to explain SRT using 5D space- ( another kind of multiverse )
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
“Well”, said physicists and mathematicians, -
" maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D, 11D or 27D spaces will explain it".
But………. But there is one problem.
To create new D space, they must add a new parameter.
Because it is impossible to create new D space without
a new parameter.
And they take this parameter arbitrarily
(it fixed according to they opinion, not by objective rules).
The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
“Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…”
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:
“with one more parameter the elephant will fly.”
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains? Where is the logic ?

If we don’t know what 1+1 = 2
how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?
And if we don’t know what is 4-D negative Mincowski
multiverse how can we understand 11-D space
( string theory) and another kind of multiverse ?
=========.
Best wishes.