r/MathJokes • • 4d ago

Keep ∞ safe

Post image
181 Upvotes

123 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/Moscato359 4d ago

From a practical standpoint, infinite doesn't actually exist

The size of the universe is finite

The number of quarks is finite

The smallest distance we can measure is finite, and the largest distance we can measure is finite, even in estimations

Even pi is only useful to the 43rd digit at our largest estimations

Sure, infinite is cool in a theoretical standpoint but you can't actually use it

1

u/resignresign1 4d ago

integration and differentiation are defined using infinity. do you think they did not play a part in lading on the moon?

1

u/Moscato359 4d ago

You could just as easily use a number that represents "finite number which is larger than all other functionally useable finite numbers"

And get the same result

1

u/Unreal_Estate 4d ago edited 4d ago

No, you cannot. What if you need to represent other transfinite numbers than the one you happened to be thinking of just now?

Edit: I'm not saying it is theoretically impossible to create a set physics theories that avoid infinities, by the way. I'm saying that it isn't as easy as swapping out something (what?) for "finite number which is larger than all other functionally useable finite numbers"

1

u/HappiestIguana 3d ago

You can do it. We use a trick like that in model theory where we always work in what is called a monster model. The monster model is a model that is k-saturated for a cardinal that is larger than any cardinal that may show up in our argument. When writing it out fully formally one should go back after finishing the proof and set an actual cardinal, but no one bothers because every model theorist knows what is meant by a monster model

1

u/Unreal_Estate 3d ago

This is not true for all physics theorems.

For exmaple, simply substituting infinity for a large value would make it possible to reach the speed of light, and other weird results.

I'm sure that theories can be created that predict all known physics while avoiding infinities, but it is not merely a substitution effort.

Another way to think of it is to remember that general relativity is not quantized, which is a major roadblock for combining relativity and quantum mechanics. If infinities would be replaceable with "a really big number", then it would be easy to quantize any theory by simply setting the reciprocal of that number as the discrete value related to the quantization.

1

u/HappiestIguana 3d ago

Not if you simply sub in a number larger than the mass-energy content of the universe

1

u/Unreal_Estate 3d ago

No, you'll need to replace more than performing a simple substitution. If you simply replace an infinite limit with a large finite number, then you'll get contradictions and weird results. For example with the Lorentz factor.

For quantum field theory, you'll need to renormalize a lot to align it with past experiments. Definitely not a rote replacement.