/sci/ - Science & Math

[Femanon No.3302139]

Hello, /sci/entists.

I am currently a freshman in high school, and I have an important question to ask. None of the teachers in my school have been able to provide an answer, so I have turned to you.

The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Yet we also have the Big Bang model, which states that the universe started as a very condensed, very hot, and very small ball of energy, which expanded rapidly. Common sense tells us that there is a beginning to everything, so where did this 'baby' universe come from? Supposing 'God' created the universe, how was this omniscient being created? If energy cannot be created, how did anything start? By saying there has to be a beginning, we are going against a law of the universe. I have gotten in a few debates over this. The other party's reply was always "God created the universe," and that was the end of it.

I personally believe energy can be created and destroyed. The only question that remains is: How?

Tell me, /sci/ence nerds, what are your views? Abandon religion for a moment.

[Anonymous No.3302151]

>I am currently a freshman in high school
>I personally believe energy can be created and destroyed.

Troll?

[Anonymous No.3302147]

I hope you didn't ask this question in class. If so enjoy the next four years.

[Anonymous No.3302159]

Define created and destroyed.

[Anonymous No.3302170]

> If energy cannot be created, how did anything start?
Particles + antiparticles = 0, also we're sure yet - but we're working on it.

> Common sense tells us that there is a beginning to everything, so where did this 'baby' universe come from?
Nope.jpg

>I personally believe energy can be created and destroyed. The only question that remains is: How?
Nope.jpg

[Anonymous No.3302175]

>Common sense tells us that there is a beginning to
>everything

common sense is quite subjective

[Anonymous No.3302178]

>common sense tells us

This is where science ends and derp begins.

[Anonymous No.3302179]

>I personally believe
Stop right there.
No one cares what you believe. In science all that matters is observation and evidence.
Also, how does the beginning of the universe conflict with conservation of energy?

[Anonymous No.3302180]

>>3302139
The law of conservation of energy refers to an already existing universe with its physical laws "in place". Therefore, energy can neither be created or destroyed in the context of the universe. The "cause" of the Big Bang is unknown. Call it God to fill in that "gap" if you want, but keep in mind that science has had a very good track record debunking God as a cause for something.

[Anonymous No.3302182]

You're saying that the universe has existed forever since energy cannot be created but physical laws didn't exist before the Big Bang.

[Anonymous No.3302186]

>I personally believe energy can be created and destroyed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
skip to 43 mins

[Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ No.3302188]

>>3302175
In other words, common sense is merely an evolutionary advantageous thing to have, but it's arbitrary by being defined in relation to evolutionary fitness.

[Anonymous No.3302189]

Given a zero sum universe (Flat), quantum fluctuations can create enough energy for the initial expansion.

Fuckin magic

[Anonymous No.3302191]

>common sense
That's where you go wrong, common sense means fuck all.
Would common sense tell us that something could be both wave and particle? Nope.
Is there anything that is both a wave and a particle? Every particle in the universe.

[Anonymous No.3302196]

Of course energy is destroyed. It's called entropy.

[Anonymous No.3302203]

>>3302196
OH....GOD

[Anonymous No.3302210]

>>3302196
I hope you're trolling.

[Anonymous No.3302208]

We exist in a universe that is rather difficult to explain, regarding the first few microseconds.
Literally microseconds. You'll get to that if you take up physics in college.

Since beyond this point is fundamentally unexplainable besides theory regarding the particles present, it's rather difficult to speculate on origins.

I consider the possibility of an supreme being as the source of the matter and energy we observe as being remote to the extreme, from the perspective of an individual not indoctrinated into any religion from a young age. It remains, of course, a possibility; in the same manner as an infinite big bang/big crunch cycle does, or a multiverse in which our universe is one of many, instigated from an event that is fundamentally outside our comprehension as it is inobservable from our perspective but entirely common.

[Anonymous No.3302218]

Common sense has no way in science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60uJ7sOx_1A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw

Also, no, we don't know what was before the Big Bang yet.

[Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ No.3302221]

>>3302210
No no, I think he meant Information is destroyed.

[Anonymous No.3302229]

>>3302203
>>3302210
Instead of being condescending (wich is related to your ego and has no place in the subject), explain why I'm wrong.
Or if you're don't feel like doing it, then don't post at all perhaps?

[Anonymous No.3302232]

>>3302221
But information is what creates energy...

[Anonymous No.3302245]

>>3302186

>All see able matter constitutes 1% of universe
>We are insignificant
>~170 billion galaxies in known universe & ~50 billion planets in Milky Way
>the human race therefore constitutes ~1/8.5*10^21 of the universe
>mfw we are even more insignificant than Krauss said
>mfw this is interdasting

[Anonymous No.3302254]

>>3302229
Maybe you shouldn't post if you don't know what you're talking about.
If you had said "Isn't entropy the destruction of energy?" I would have probably corrected you without being condescending

[Anonymous No.3302261]

>>3302229
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+entropy%3F

>>3302232
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in_thermodynamics_and_information_theory

[Anonymous No.3302262]

There is also conservation of information, hence why Hawking radiation wank.

[Anonymous No.3302257]

Pardon me, but I do believe you've all been trolled.

[Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ No.3302303]

>>3302262
You certainly conserved the level of information provided. Kudos on increasing your information entropy.

[Anonymous No.3302370]

>>3302261
Oh, ok, I get it better now .
Thanks !

[Anonymous No.3302384]

God created everything. Christians 1 Athiests 0

[Anonymous No.3302392]

Newtonian theory is outdated. I find it annoying that he even became famous. Yes, both matter and energy can be created and destroyed (see black/white holes). It's darned near impossible to know how the universe was created, but there are theories. For example, the "small, blue, fifty-armed Jatravartids, [from Viltvodle VI] live in perpetual fear of what they refer to as "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief." This is their cosmology's version of the end of the Universe, and can be explained by the fact that they believe that the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure." -Douglas Adams
Alternative feasible theories are,
1) Other universes exist (I know, contradiction to the term "universe," but we're thinking pan-dimensionally here) and from one universe may be created another (how did the first one start??)...
2) The separation of two forces created the universe (this one makes most sense to me). Think of math. There is a 1 and a 0, but also a -1. Particles and antiparticles. The theory provides that it may not be infinite density/mass that expanded, but rather mass (in both senses of the word) duplication at extraordinary rates.
...
The biggest question here is, why did it all start? Why was the universe "inspired" to self-create? How could such a framework of universal laws be created by such fluke? These questions are still left to philosophers.
Read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time." You may find some answers.

[Anonymous No.3302398]

>>3302384
0/10

[Anonymous No.3302414]

>>3302392
"Newtonian theory is outdated. I find it annoying that he even became famous."

Damn, Newton must've been a dummy since no one replaced his theories for 250 years. Not that that matters.
Also its not like he help contribute anything to math that was important.

[Anonymous No.3302417]

Causation requires time. Before the Big Bang there was no time.