/sci/ - Science & Math

No, conservation of energy

of course it fucking isnt you absolute moron!

define destruction

>>4180008
calm down. why are you mean today? wana talk about it?

>>4180003 No, conservation of energy
Well, if it's zero ...

What's destruction? And why can't people ignore EK?

>>4180050
It's the economy of frustration, you teenage revolutionnary ! Why don't you get your own frustrations instead of whining all the time for other people to be nice to you ?

>>4180098
Becaus enot everyoone spend the time to read the name field.

Not really, but as time goes on it becomes increasingly boring.

>>4180008
>not taken pills today

>>4179997
There are many theories on how the universe will end of even if it will, also depends on how you think the universe was created.

>>4180050
She has gone.

>>4179997
I do not see how.
Nothing short of collapsing the universe back into a singularity would achieve that, as matter can not be created or destroyed, and even if it could be destroyed, empty space will still exist, which is still in the universe.

Heat death of the universe, yo.

>Can't destroy a universe

Here is something I don't understand..
-Space is expanding
-We have a finite amount of energy (though so incredibly high we can assert this as infinite)
-2nd law of thermodynamic states heat death

Where is all the fucking energy?
I mean, sure, its density is infinitely small, but all the energy once present would still be there..
I think heat death causes perfect symmetry, which causes a collaps of the "perfect vacuum", which will create a new big bang.
The point where the big bang will restart will be where the last particles weave out and dissipate into "seemingly nothing"
How valid could this be?

>Destruction of the universe. Is it possible ?
No.

>>4180181
Heat death creates a false vaccum in which quantum fluctuations pinch off as bits of true vacuum, universes all in their own.

>>4180192
when the photons "weave out and dissipate into seemingly nothing" maybe they catch a ride with the quantum fluctuations or are the fluctuations themselves, expanding as some kind of scaled down big bang

>build laser capable of reaching Planck power
>focus the beam to a point in space
>????
>watch reality tear apart

>>4180217
"The Planck energy divided by the Planck time is the Planck power, equal to about 3.62831 × 1052 W. This is an extremely large unit; even gamma-ray bursts, the most luminous phenomena known, have output on the order of 1 × 1045 W, less than one ten-millionth of the Planck power."

The entire universe is getting pulled into an unimaginably massive object outside of the universe, so maybe all the matter will get pulled into it eventually?

>>4180206
>>4180192
>>4180181

Would a vacuum energy bomb be enough?

Destruction as in "non-existence"? NO.

Destruction as in "irrevocable change into a non-utile form"? YES.

To destroy the universe in the second sense, you merely have to wait 10^100 years or so (assuming protons decay).

Kind of relevant:

http://super-ways.com/top-10-ways-to-destroy-earth/

>>4180233
It's a black hole devouring everything in its path at an exponentially growing rate

>>4180241
If they don't or do after all that time, you think it would ignite a new "universe"?BBT makes sense to a degree...