/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10820478]

If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then where did energy come from?

[Anonymous No.10820484]

>>10820478
From the "big bounce".
Google "loop quantum gravity".

[Anonymous No.10820488]

>>10820484
And where did that come from?

[Anonymous No.10820489]

>>10820484
I like LQG, but... where did the first universe come from? LQG states where this universe came from but it doesn't specify how the cycle of big bounces and big bangs got started.

[Anonymous No.10820518]

>>10820489
>>10820488
God's fart.

[Anonymous No.10820521]

>>10820478
>then where did energy come from?
Nobody really knows.
There are theories but its hard to experimentally verify them with current instruments.

[Anonymous No.10820523]

>>10820489
It's a loop, there's no beginning or end.

[Anonymous No.10820555]

>>10820523
Then what caused the loop?

[Anonymous No.10820585]

>>10820478
>cannot be created
wrong
https://youtu.be/IcxptIJS7kQ?t=33m

[Anonymous No.10820597]

>>10820478
The Big Bang

[Anonymous No.10820624]

>>10820555
the computer simulation

[Anonymous No.10820767]

>>10820478
>It's like, turtles all the way down, bro

[Anonymous No.10820779]

>>10820478
energy is a statistic of a model
the energy in the model is computed from the initial conditions

[Anonymous No.10820795]

>>10820478
Energy's a way of describing interactions, it doesn't exist as a real physical object so it doesn't need to have come from anywhere.

[Anonymous No.10820798]

>>10820767
No, I am down there at the bottom.

[Anonymous No.10820803]

>>10820478
It came from nothing. The absolute nothing theorem clearly states that if nothing exists at all then something has to be created because nothing can't exist. Also the big bang happened like 9 times already.

[Anonymous No.10820956]

>>10820478
the total energy of the universe is zero so technically there is no energy..

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10820965]

I believe cataclysmic waveform collapse can be and always will be derived from 0 potential.
An axiom must be considered true if the logic is without instance or potential of affecting out come.

0 velocity, 0 matter, 0 time, 0 space, 0 acceleration.

Logically this axiom cannot possibly have any outcome as a result of itself to any aspect it's involved with.

However, inversely it does upon deriving anything from it as a sole frame of reference.
It's a single reference frame.
The only measurement you can derive is distance from it via acceleration.
This comes at cost of all other motions.
As logic dictates what's gained in measurement incurred unknown potential of any and all other forces the object has, as we know it to be now.

It may be a single reference point. So how does that birth any more measure than distance.

From two reference points, the only deviation from them in a 2d plain is gained.
That is incorrect

0 & (> 0) is two points of reference. Indisputable and calculable.
How do you gain a new reference point.

If it is to apparate in a straight line. The cascade will always fail.
Because linear systems cannot know it's own position in the value, only what's directly adjacent.
So linear calculation only ever resolves in 2 points. As a middle value can only point/look one way at one time.

[Anonymous No.10821050]

>>10820478
Its amazing how people will accept something even when they know about a massive glaring flaw in it.

[Anonymous No.10821082]

>>10820478
What do you mean come from? The singularity that was the universe existed forever.

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10821096]

>>10821082
We need to calculate a minimum vector that intersects itself the minimum times it requires to have Pi implode equally from intersections.

Sounds impossible because Pi can't be resolved.
But it's resolution is not in having the full denoteion value of it's decimal.

The solution is in stipulating property of the Point Zero axiom vector correctly.
Intercessions should be made when values of the vector segment have been exhibited only just enough.
So that other intercessions of differing relative vector segments upon it include the remaing data as result of it's path so on and so forth.

The vector itself must be a complex vector by default.
Segmenting the vector is not a new equation. But the points between intercessions.
The sucess of a segment is a unique state it exerts to and from those connections.

To 'fuse' each segment. Quantum stacking is applied from the intersection.
And every intersection if multable exist in the same point.
Remember this a bit by bit calculation.
3d shapes are just center points given walls.
The result of fission must be logical.
A quantum stack cant have infinite potential at 2 points.


Because the paths of unique vector segments intersect.
And be that time doesn't exist. Change of direction is imperceptible.
So when successfully calculated, intersections are CSP's derived from different potential than the Point Zero Axiom.
The Zero Point Axiom must also resolve. By return of the vector to the point of origin.
In effect collapsing any evidence where a state of zero potential existed.
Continuity must be evident in each interception, logically related with Quantum Stacking.
As to prove that each point equates the same.

Resolving to Point Zero confirms implosion. So long as The CSP equates from all Axioms as the same value.
Regardless of start value.
And that Quantum stacking is logical

[Anonymous No.10821137]

>>10820803
>absolute nothing theorem
The what?

[Anonymous No.10821138]

>>10820478
atheist btfo

[Anonymous No.10821140]

>>10820478
>If energy cannot be created or destroyed

No such law exists. The conservation of energy states only that the total energy value of a closed system can not change.

>then where did energy come from?

The conservation of energy only stipulates that the total energy value of a closed system doesn’t change. Thus, the universe may have always possessed its current energy without coming into conflict with the law. It may have also received it from another universe, if it isn’t a closed system. The law could also just be wrong, and fail under conditions we aren’t aware of.

[Anonymous No.10821142]

>>10821138
Not sure if joke or not.

[Anonymous No.10821144]

>>10820555
Does a circle have a starting point when you look at it? I hope that clarifies where loops come from

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10821191]

>>10821144
Do they have an end point if you start from X?

[Anonymous No.10821199]

>>10820478
holy shit . constant state rises again. if energy is never created and cant be destroyed then the amount in the universe was and always will be the same. so even if the mater was not always present the energy to make the mater was always in existence ergo in energy form the mater was present at all times

also entropy btfo. how will it ever recover

or every one is just making shit up and they dont know

[Solivagus, Infamous Dragfag No.10821203]

>>10820478
OP

[Anonymous No.10821313]

>>10821140
>>If energy cannot be created or destroyed
>No such law exists. The conservation of energy states only that the total energy value of a closed system can not change.
The logical consequence being it cannot be created or destroyed as its ammount is constant.

>>then where did energy come from?
>The conservation of energy only stipulates that the total energy value of a closed system doesn’t change.
No, its for isolated systems. Closed systems can exchange energy freely. Open systems can exchange energy and mass.

>Thus, the universe may have always possessed its current energy without coming into conflict with the law. It may have also received it from another universe, if it isn’t a closed system.
Again, closed systems can exchange energy freely. This is highschool physics. The Universe is classically understood as 'all there is' and so is by definition an isolated system. The concept of 'other universes' is also meaningless pop sci misinterpretation because the notion of Universe already includes what you 'ifuckinglovescience' fans call multiverse. Even if two systems are presently disconnected, but have the same source, they are causally linked to their origin.

[Anonymous No.10821355]

>>10821313
>The Universe is classically understood as 'all there is' and so is by definition an isolated system.

That “classical understanding” is dumb. The universe is now defined as spacetime and its contents.

>The concept of 'other universes' is also meaningless pop sci misinterpretation because the notion of Universe already includes what you 'ifuckinglovescience' fans call multiverse.

No it doesn’t. A separate spacetime could not be labeled part of our universe.

>Even if two systems are presently disconnected, but have the same source, they are causally linked to their origin.

Talking about causation independent of spacetime is incoherent nonsense.

[Anonymous No.10821358]

>>10820478
You answered your own question. It always existed.

[Anonymous No.10821376]

>>10821355
>A separate spacetime could not be labeled part of our universe
Yes it could, its wouldn't be 'separate' from us if we could observe it. Everything is continuous with everything else

[Anonymous No.10821425]

>>10820521
this.

>>10820585
I remember that lecture... mindblown

[Anonymous No.10821566]

Consider absolute nothing. Not only would there be no matter, energy, space, time. There would be no laws of physics or even causality.

Without causality, anything can happen for no reason whatsoever. So this universe and everything in it could have happened for no reason at all.

[Anonymous No.10821580]

>>10820478
It didn't come from anywhere. The net energy in the universe is still 0, so nothing has actually been created.