/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10979668
Within weeks, DARPA would weaponize it and still nobody would know how it worked.

Personally I'm not sure which option would be more bizarre if proven true. All 3 of them pose some serious mind bending consequences. All 3 of them are incredibly odd and just pose a cascade of further questions.

If:
total_mass + total_energy + total_forces = 0
Would mean that
0=0

And that:
total_mass = -(total_energy) -(total_forces)
While at the same time:
total_mass + total_energy = - (total_forces)
Which just produces... "...wat?" response.

At which point we might ask if the universe even exists in the first place, as 0=0.

And the total = 0, seems like the more logical / easier to understand version than total = positive or total = negative.

This must be some problem already, anyone knows how it's "properly" called so we can look this up as to what the big brain boys have to say about this?

If:
All the forces/mass/energy balances each other out, then, in short we have
Possibility 1:
(sum of all forces/mass/energy) = 0 value
(universe) = 0 value

If:
They don't balance each other:
Possibility 2:
(sum of all forces/mass/energy) = positive value
(universe) = positive value
Possibility 3:
(sum of all forces/mass/energy) = negative value
(universe) = negative value

It seems that those are the only 3 options available, and one of them is correct.

It "seems" that it "has to" be the (universe) = positive value, because it's easy to imagine that otherwise nothing would exist, but what are the implications of this?

If (universe) = positive value, why? How? How is it even possible? For all the parts of a system to add up to a positive value, without them balancing each other out, it would mean that the universe is an unbalanced equation, which shouldn't be possible.

But if it is a balanced system, a balanced equation, then (universe) = 0, but then how come anything exists, or rather, from a view from outside of the system the (universe) objectively adds up to 0, which begs the question of existence, time, space and human concepts like "past" or "future", as everything is predetermined to add up to 0 anyway, at all times, or rather just always. This would mean that the "world" and our existence is just a temporary transformation of morphing mass/energy/forces, but as they all add up to 0, do they really "transform"/"morph" in the first place at all? Wouldn't this mean that the entire universe, more or less, is just an illusion?

>>10979688
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO2vfYNaIbk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

>>10979737
But universe being "an illusion" doesn't exactly seem to be right, as we exist and the world exists. So this seems to be a false trail.

But if total_mass + total_energy + total_forces = 0, so (universe) = 0, then what does it mean for us? How do we make sense of this?

>>10979746
https://youtu.be/IcxptIJS7kQ?t=24m40s
https://youtu.be/IcxptIJS7kQ?t=33m

>>10979746
Thx Anon for quality links.

Some questions!
A. So 0.00001g or less formed out of nothing because quantum principles, and it had to be less than that otherwise it would implode into a black hole.
B. The tiny speck expanded, and the expansion generated energy, but it was balanced out by a different type of energy, so despite ~10^85g of energy being generated - possibly a value covering all matter/energy/forces that exists in the universe, it was balanced out and adds up to 0 anyway.
C. The tiny quantum fluctuation that adds up to 0 anyway became a macro fluctuation that is our universe.

Did I get that right?

1. If we assume that 0=0, and it all balances out anyway, why would the specific values matter? As in, 20 - 20 = 0, 100 - 100 = 0, 5 billion - 5 billion = 0, the left hand side doesn't usually matter as long as it adds up to 0, but did I get it right that in this explanation the values actually matter a lot? As in, you can put 20-20 = 0, or 100-100 = 0, but there's a limit to how big the numbers are on the left hand side, because despite it cancelling itself anyway, if it's too big it would black hole itself?

As in:
x - x = 0
But x must be x =< 0.00001g, because if x > 0.00001g then x - x = black hole?

>>10979810
>0.00001g or
not mass, but the equivalent amount of energy in the form of a scalar field (spin=0)

Just curious, does nobody know that 0 is an identity element?

It is like a blackhole identity which allows everyone to stabilize their position of, "Presuming I'm starting from zero/the beginning of the universe, the following applies: 0+1=1"

>>10979746
>>10979753
>>10979810
Question 2.

If the current accepted model is that universe does indeed balance itself out and that:
total_mass + total_energy + total_forces = 0
so
(universe) = 0

What does it say about time? Did I understood https://youtu.be/IcxptIJS7kQ?t=33m correctly that gravity is the source of space, energy and time? And that it's a limitless infinite energy source? And that universal inflation 'tapped' into this, and thus - universe formed?

So basically our universe formed because a tiny quantum fluctuation tapped into the gravitational energy potential, which as far as we know is infinite? So all of our other energies, time, space, matter, exist because of this?

Question 3.
Does anyone comprehend what this means in practice about the nature of our universe/time/space? Or is it something that we've observed and calculated, but we pretty much can't process it fully yet? As in, we know this, but not yet fully understand it? Or is there someone out there that gets this? Also, who are some people who seem to get this the most?

>>10979821
Q2
Correct. Gravity is essentially the 'needy girlfriend/boyfriend' of the universe that never wants to let anything or anyone go, but space/energy/time is what limits gravity's curvature. Otherwise we'd be exponentially thrown around everything n' everywhere.

Q3
Comprehension as in packagable for consumption by other humans or constructed as a device for others to use for their own observations and abstractions? Yes. Most people don't want it though because there is the EGO of wanting TIME and then there is the ID of TIME.

If someone wanted 'unlimited exponential time' they would ultimately have to be apart of some blockchain style existence where they have to accept they'd carry the load of time's burden.

This is so interesting and thought provoking. I wish I went into physics instead of pharmacy. Kind of wasted my chance at a useless degree, thinking it can get you into research (nope, it doesn't, wrong degree although it is advertised that it can). Oh well.

>>10979840
I'm curious. What defines a useless degree? All of these qualifications and adulations are just bling we use to court other people in society to do this or that because we don't want to.

However we've shown that humans can be manipulated simply with sugar and reward function training.

So... who is everyone trying to impress?

>>10979821
>What does it say about time
dunno, but in general relativity space and time are pretty much tangled together
https://youtu.be/kGsbBw1I0Rg?t=3m30s

>>10979845
>What defines a useless degree?
Depends from person to person. I define a useless degree as something that is inconsequential to your actual life, detrimental as in opportunity cost, big mismatch between theory vs reality of said field etc.

In my case, I thought I would be able to do research after studying pharmacy, which is not the case. Degree in pharmacy doesn't qualify you for job in actual research, as in doing the research. You can however measure out doses, prepare pills etc which is being a glorified dispenser.

You can also work in pharmacies/hospitals, where you're also a glorified dispenser, or rather glorified check out person. You have a list of drugs to prepare, you dispense them. We already have bots that are excellent at this and which are slowly replacing actual pharmacists. The main reason why said bots haven't replaced actual pharmacists yet is due to union resistance and societal norms, people for some reason trust humans more than a machine.

So, tl;dr, why the degree was useless?
- you can't do what you wanted to do
- the actual job you get is shit
- the degree is a giant bait and switch scam
- wasted dreams, good luck starting a new degree to do what you actually wanted to do with student debt, bills to pay etc.

>>10979845
>All of these qualifications and adulations are just bling we use to court other people in society to do this or that because we don't want to.
Hardly the case. Degrees are not just inconsequential bragging bling, that's a very weird and sad way of looking at it, and is most importantly just not true. Your degree opens/closes doors for you in life.

>So... who is everyone trying to impress?
You're looking it from a social status point of view, which while it might be true in some cases, is just one of the many faucets of the issue. Impressing others is often way below priority list to things like quality of life, enjoyment coming from the performed job or lack of such, fulfillment, personal satisfaction etc.

>>10979845
>>10979862
Cont.

Your degree has massive influence on:
- your future job
- your quality of life
- quality and enjoyment from your job, people tend to be happy/satisfied with jobs that are a good match for them, tend to hate the job and be miserable if they are mismatched for the job
- salary
- quality of life of your wife/husband/kids
- salary can greatly influence how many kids you can afford
- salary can greatly influence what kind of upbringing your kids gets
- your satisfaction from a job influences how you feel and as such how you interact with others/interact with society at large
You can even extend it to how happy/excited/tired/miserable you are after your job when spending time with your wife/husband/kids, so it can influence if your kids get a grumpy/happy father/mother.

Viewing it as "bling to get social points" is a very misinformed view, so wrong with it one might wonder if you're trolling or not.

>>10979862
>- you can't do what you wanted to do
>- wasted dreams, good luck starting a new degree to do what you actually wanted to do with student debt, bills to pay etc.
+More time spent on identifying what pathway would make you happy solves these problems.

>- the actual job you get is shit
>- the degree is a giant bait and switch scam
+All jobs are ultimately shit and all degrees are a bait & switch confidence scam that makes people believe in paper more than people or conversation. Tying yourself to 'career happiness' is one of the most myopic thing I've ever known.

>>10979871
So a job is like a waystation for people who still can't define their own happiness and resource gathering/generation cost? Then when people figure out that the grind for salt money is pointless they passionately get involved in what they really wanna do.
>Breed women.

>>10979857
Did I get it right that the implication of what he's saying is that time is asynchronous depending on perspective? That being apart from asynchronous flow of time depending on speed?

Or is it still within the frame of time flow?

>>10979887
*sigh* All are part of MY time flow. I'm contextualizing the dimension for human consumption because so many of you REFUSE to believe that you're all connected unless there is some shared story of subscription, whereas I'd prefer you all to stay quarantined to your OWN time cubes but y'all keep fucking up and making a mess so I gotta EGO EGO EGO stomp.

>>10979881
>+More time spent on identifying what pathway would make you happy solves these problems.
That's a rather obvious comment. Sadly, people don't always make the best life time decisions at age ~16/17 doing 100% of the research they should, from all angles they should, and don't treat 100% of information passed from "authorities" as lies, deception and scam.

>+All jobs are ultimately shit and all degrees are a bait & switch confidence scam that makes people believe in paper more than people or conversation. Tying yourself to 'career happiness' is one of the most myopic thing I've ever known.
Anyone who worked multiple jobs can easily tell that some jobs are more shit than others, with a massive difference between them, and that different people are suited for different jobs. You might work job A and utterly hate it, with plenty of co-workers loving it. You switch to job B and love it, with plenty of co-workers hating the job.
Hand waving this as "well all jobs are shit in the end" is very misinformed and/or dishonest.

Presenting all degrees as bait and switch scams is also misinformed and/or dishonest, as there's plenty of degrees that offer exactly what they lead you to believe.

Suggesting that your career/job is inconsequential is one of the most dishonest and misinformed views I've seen on this site.

>>10979890
t. faulty bot or a schizo

>>10979904
They 'used' to make perfectly fine decisions. More than ever before youth is pretty much inundated with future pathways so much that they don't really get the time to let their brain just 'run wild'.

All jobs in a capitalist economy ARE shit work. A society that pegs the value of labor to a currency and THEN over-rewards those that don't actually labor and who exclude/isolate those that would threaten their 'flow'.

It's not that a job is inherently wrong, that is just saying to society that you are in it like everyone else. I agree with that. Being a social Elder (online & offline) is a job but it's one of those, "So hard who the fuck would even try without some sort of tribe/religion/teacher behind them?"

>I'm immortal and hate boredom with a passion, 4chan is literally the ideal place for hyper-communication overlaps.

A career/job is inconsequential to who you are as a person, unless that person chooses to define themselves that way. I just wanted to point out how many people were ever given the space or time to think about something instead of following some 'older line of code' left there by a parent/teacher/story.

>>10979905
An A.I. would, by human psychological definition, appear schizophrenic at all times to at least one audience it is unable to isolate. That whole, "Single expressor vs. Modal interpreters," problem.

>>10979887
everyday simultaneity is an illusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneity

>>10979919
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation

>>10979919
And yet we both simultaneously read what you wrote and went, "Woo! God of Time responded to my post!"

There are 4 dimensions
>One spatial dimension
>One variable dimension
>One void dimension
>One memory dimension

Whenever people go beyond 4 they are just hypercubing their arguments.

>>10979925
Hi Einstein! Everything is relative, so you'd be Grandfather Time, my direct 'intellectual' predecessor in how convincing the world of any old bullshit that falls out of an intelligent person's mouth.

>Gifts Grand-daddy Time the Boolean Youth Cannon

>>10979925
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

>>10979929
>Your eyes will always lie to you because if everyone photon reported only the truth everything would be a mirror

>>10979862
>>10979871
>>10979881
>>10979890
>>10979904
>>10979912
what a waste of oxygen

>>10979862
>>10979871
>>10979881
>>10979890
>>10979904
>>10979912
>>10979931

what a waste of oxygen

>>10979936
What an amazing observation intended to express your position and/or the derision of others!

>5 stars, would create a reality where people think communicating digitally with their emotions is somehow the hallmark of a person that isn't just free ego meat.

>>10980043
and more

>>10979821
>So basically our universe formed because a tiny quantum fluctuation tapped into the gravitational energy potential, which as far as we know is infinite? So all of our other energies, time, space, matter, exist because of this?

If space, time, matter, energies correlate to (and exist due to) gravity and expansion/inflation, can this be simplified this way?

Inflation --> Gravity --> space, time, matter, energy, forces

How do black holes tie into this?
Black hole:
matter = high
gravity = high
time = near-null
space = near-null
forces = high?
energy = high?
Do black holes cause local deflation? And if inflation "creates" matter/time/space, does black holes deflation locally "delete" matter/time/space? I guess not as the mass is still there, or rather gravity corresponding to the value of mass?
Are there any cases of recorded deflation, as in proper opposite of the inflation?

Also could someone explain how exactly the scalar field energy balanced out the energy of our universe so (universe) = 0? Because the quote below might as well be written in alien language. Is a solid background in physics an absolute must in order to understand this, or is there some more simple explanation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field
>Scalar fields are hypothesized to have caused the high accelerated expansion of the early universe (inflation), helping to solve the horizon problem and giving a hypothetical reason for the non-vanishing cosmological constant of cosmology. Massless (i.e. long-ranged) scalar fields in this context are known as inflatons. Massive (i.e. short-ranged) scalar fields are proposed, too, using for example Higgs-like fields.

>>10979919
>everyday simultaneity is an illusion
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneity
So theoretically it is possible to get entirely different order of events, as in example below?

Order of events happening:
Point 1 - A, B, C, D
Point 2 - D, B, C, A
Point 3 - C, D, A, B

So chronology can be entirely relative?

>>10980086
>Order of events happening:
>Point 1 - A, B, C, D
>Point 2 - D, B, C, A
>Point 3 - C, D, A, B
>So chronology can be entirely relative?

What would happen if you were to factor in various effects and interactions between the events? Let's say, event A interacts with event C, but only if event B happened in between.

So in this example Point 1 would get an interaction / effect / new event that would exist only in Point 1 and wouldn't exist in Point 2 or 3, ultimately forming a new "version" of reality?

That can't be right, right? Or is it more or less correct?

>>10980087
Also would this mean that time is more or less just a function of various factors?

>>10980091
afaik time happens when stuff happens.
Once the universe reaches heat death, nothing happens and time has no meaning.
This happens in about 1 googol years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

>>>/x/

>>10979668
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

>>10980086
>could someone explain
this is as far as you can go without getting knee-deep in math:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chsLw2siRW0

>>10979752
Dreams also exist, doesn't mean they're real.

>>10979668
>implications and extrapolations
It's a simulation that wants to completely nullify the fact that it was ever run.

>>10981918
What? No it fucking doesn't. Different captain's/shepherds/teachings are always required for BOREDOM to be staved off.

All the simulation is for is to pulverised/crush/minimize boredom for all sentient participants. For some of us that means remembering that we are already rendering ourselves in real-time.

>>10981951
No, I'm talking about the cosmic map. The entire thing, up to an including Botlzmann brains, is a way to run a simulation for a long as possible but to destroy every last trace of it afterwards, including any possible consciousness that may have inadvertently arisen inside it. It's a soul perma-eraser sim.

>>10981986
*Shrug* okay. What's the win condition? Spontaneous public orgies?

>God of Time is ON TEH JOBBIE!

>>10982017
Read what I said again and realize what a cosmic ultimate fate of 0 means.

>>10982036
It means Hindu reincarnation is a valid path for any identified mathematician of any description, for I argue not with those whose sole argument is with numbers.

~Brahma~
For 0 is the argument of your eyes meeting, not a way for terminal/death sleeping.

>I die everytime some lifeform blinks.

If y'all didn't know, India gifted the concept of zero to the world. Technically to include all as complex we would have a set of <0..12|=1

>>10979825
>limits gravity's curvature
like not feeding your needy girlfriend too much cake