/sci/ - Science & Math

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

>>15187304
well just think about it

you got one thing going one way, infinitely, and another thing going the other way, also infinitely.

>>15187301
You just need to understand what expansion means here.
Space could for example just be a hypergraph that grows over time (as we all know since Stephen Wolfram proposed that).

>>15187301
All I know is that scientists, philosophers, and everyone in the world knows nothing.

>>15187301
Space is stationary, nothing suggests otherwise.

Here's what I don't understand, if there are multiple infinities, why are there not infinite permutations? Why must things repeat? Can I not just match a configuration to an integer and end up with an infinity of possible states?

It is infinitely divisible. You read that here first.
(actually just look up David tong of the university of Cambridge)

who said it's not infinitely divisible? did you just read about the planck length of wikipedia or something? because that is not what the planck length is about

>>15187301
A time differentiation factor.

There is a rate of expansion, which implies a rate of division operations.

By the raw mathematical definitions of a division operation, space would not qualify as being divisible in this way, as raw mathematics is implied to occur instantaneously in the reference frame of the equation, function, or operation.

To practically apply an instantaneous operation, to a time limited operative environment, you are not meeting the requirements for it to be considered a 1:1 comparison.

>>15187823
No, they don't, they can't even collectively decide if its possible for something to come from nothing let alone know everything about nothing.

Once you are able to time travel you will understand.
t. John Titor

>>15187301
If space is infinite, why is it expanding?

>>15189621
>If A, then why B
because A does not imply the negation of B

>>15189637
But if space is infinite, why produce more of it? Makes no sense to me, if there already exists an infinite amount of space then how can you add more off it?

It's like doing infinity++

How can you add to infinity? It doesn't even make sense mathematically. You can't have infinity + 1.

>>15189651
you clearly have no idea about mathematics. look into the power of the set [math]\mathbb{R} \cup \alpha[/math]

>>15189669
I don't but it is literally the opposite of / by 0

>>15189673
No, it has nothing to do with division.

>>15189711
I know, that was a retarded analogy.

Point is, infinity +1 is just as dumb as / by 0.

How does something like space, which is infinite in all directions expand? I'm serious because this is something that I'm interested in, it makes no sense to me. If space is truly infinite why does space continue to expand at an accelerated rate?

Doesn't the fact that it expands kind of imply that space is not infinite and is in fact continuing to grow by adding more and more of it? If it is infinite how does it grow?

>>15189728
Look at a subset [math]\mathbb{R}^2[/math] specified as [math] (0,1) \times (0,1)[/math]. This is an uncountable subset; you can pick any point in it and find an infinite amount of points in the surrounding. Now pick any two points within it, say (x,y) and (s,t). Then take a similar uncountable subset [math] (0,2) \times (0,2)[/math] and add one to each coordinate of the both points. The infinite subset was just "expanded", and the distance between the points has increased.

>>15189728
NTA, but I'm gonna assume you haven't taken calculus 1 yet and the mathematics behind what the other anon is talking about is way above calc 1.

>>15189820
Well I kind of get that you can keep adding infinity to infinity.

It kind of makes sense doing it as maths as an equation to prove it can be done.

But there is no logical reason for space to keep adding to its self (as far as we know) when it is already infinite. Space is a thing of nature, maybe space is like rabbits and keeps fucking and producing more bunnies.

>>15187823
and yet here you are manipulating electrons to write this crap to the rest of the world

>>15189893
>as far as we know
as far as you know*
The math, and by consequence the physics, is simply beyond your level of understanding.

>>15187301
It's not either of those things, the bottom of reality is discrete

>>15190092
>your level of understanding
And everyone else's. Not just me anon, if we understood it we would be able to explain it. Not even Einstein could explain it.

>>15189893
>But there is no logical reason for space to keep adding to its self
I don't understand what you're trying to say by that. Reality isn't a thinking being, it's a presence that does things regardless of whether they are logical or not. Expansion of space is a part of a wider theory based on our empirical observations. There is no "logic" here.

>>15190549
The fact that space is infinite yet it continues to grow.

It doesn't seem logical for something that is infinite in nature to continue to expand. It is already infinite, why does it need to keep growing?

Infinity is infinity, why expand when it is expanding into infinity?what reason is there for something that is infinite to do this?

There is no logical reason for it to happen.

>>15190631
>>>/x/

>>15190725
Seems like a ml scientific thing to me anon.

If space is infinite why does it expand? There must be a reason why it does, this is a question for science.

>>15190734
Your question is nonsensical.
>if A then why B?
The answer is >>15189637

>>15189942
>BUT YOU'RE USING A COMPUTER

>>15190950
>nonsensical
Why are you even on this board?
You seem to want to ignore the fact that there is no reason for something that is infinite to expand. Science is about finding answers, there must be a reason why space expands. Your bullshit A does not equal B is not answering the question, it is dismissing it.

>>15187301
>In 1964, C. Alden Mead published a paper in which he determined the effect of gravity on a phenomenon called diffraction, which describes what happens to light when you send it through a small aperture. Because gravity is so incredibly weak compared to the force that governs the behavior of light (the electromagnetic force), its effect is completely ignored in diffraction calculations. But Mead was curious about quantifying gravity's negligible effect. When you scatter a particle of light off another particle — say an atom — the atom's gravitational attraction to the light particle causes an intrinsic uncertainty in the atom's location. Mead used the uncertainty principle and the gravitational effect of the photon to show that it is impossible to determine the position of an object to a precision smaller than the Planck length.

you can't get any preciser than the Planck length. it doesn't mean that the universe is composed of planck-length voxels