/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4979486]

Is the universe eternal?

Is it plausible to believe that there is only one 'universe' that has always existed?

I know that science agrees that, as per this analogy for existence, 'an infinite number of monkeys hammering away at infinite typewriters for an infinite amount of time will produce the entire works of shakespeare'.
Does that not mean that if you give the universe infinite amount of time, you are likely to re-exist?

[Anonymous No.4979494]

i've always wondered whether the universe is part of something bigger. like how we once thought that the earth was everything until we discovered that it was only a small part of the universe. why do we assume that the universe is now everything? it has to expand into something.

sorry about my conjecture, op. i like the questions, got my brain churning

[Anonymous No.4979498]

Is OPs image accurate?

[Anonymous No.4979510]

I don't think the current structure of the universe is eternal. But the 'energy' that makes everything around us can't just disappear and reappear out of nowhere. It must have always existed.
If it can disappear, where does it disappear to or into?
If it can reappear, where does it reappear from?
The only logical explanation is that it has ALWAYS been there and will ALWAYS continue to be there. Maybe not eternally in the current structure of the universe, but that 'energy' will always be around.

That 'energy' is what makes you, that computer, that keyboard, those rice crispy squares in your hand and that mug of tea beside you.

It's absolutely mindblowing.

[Anonymous No.4979514]

.If you believe the following two statements are true:

1) a civilization sufficiently advanced would be able to create simulated realities

2) such a civilization would create many simulated realities for study, entertainment, etcetera

Then is it more likely that we are one of the true realities, or that we are one of the countless simulated realities that a true reality would run?

There is circumstancial evidence of our universe being a simulation. In quantum mechanics, particles exist as waves of probability, in every possible state at once, until an "observer" collapses the probability wave and forces it to behave like a discrete object.

Why would the universe be built that way? Well if the computer running our simulation isn't powerful enough to track every quantum state, it can probably get by with approximating most of them, and only really tracking the ones people are looking at.

Why would our universe have a built in speed limit, making it impossible for humans to explore the rest of the cosmos? Why do we appear to be alone in the universe, when everything we know about how humans supposedly came to be says that, given the sheer number of alleged stars and planets out there, life should be all over the place?

the cold reality is, we are alone in this universe, there is no other life, other galaxies probably dont even exist as more than paintings on the sky, and the speed limit was put into place to make sure we can never find that out.

We're a simulation.

How does this affect us? Well, not much I guess. Doesn't change anything about how we live our lives.

[Anonymous No.4979520]

>>4979514
I value your post and opinion. I can see the logic that blatantly arises from it. But there are a few points I, personally, disagree with but will not have the audacity to say they are false.

>2) such a civilization would create many simulated realities for study, entertainment, etcetera
Then why give us an expiration date? Why go through the unnecessary process of evolution to get us to this stage?

>Why do we appear to be alone in the universe, when everything we know about how humans supposedly came to be says that, given the sheer number of alleged stars and planets out there, life should be all over the place?

I don't think there have been any statements of us being 'alone'. We haven't even traversed a percentage of the universe yet to make these kind of statements.

>How does this affect us? Well, not much I guess. Doesn't change anything about how we live our lives.
I don't think anything really does. The idea of a simulation is definitely a curious thought, nonetheless. I agree with this statement.

[Anonymous No.4979526]

>>4979514
Also, you have to consider that 'existence' is an incredibly unlikely phenomena. To have you, sitting there responding to me has absolutely gone against all odds and chances.

It's amazing, really.

The only possible explanations are, as you've stated, that we are in a simulated reality OR that the universe has had an infinite number of time to get us here.

[Anonymous No.4979537]

i think so

[Anonymous No.4979549]

>>4979537
do y' boss?

[Anonyman No.4979553]

>>4979526
Your statement would make the existence of a god who made everything happen a likely scenario.

Think of it, its extremely unlikely we exist, and yet we do, would that not make the idea of a constructor existing all the more plausible?

[Anonyman No.4979556]

>>4979486
I for one dont believe that the big bang was an occurrence.
I personally believe the big bang is actually an ongoing process of matter being spit into our universe.

I like to believe that the center of our universe is the tail end of an ultra massive black hole, one that makes the star producing black holes at the center of galaxy's look like a speck of dust in sheer size comparison.

[Anonymous No.4979558]

>>4979553
As I said, give the universe an infinite amount of time and we become inevitable. As does our 're-existence'.

If an infinite amount of time is not afforded to our universe, you can then see our unlikely our existence is.

Now, a better question is - why has the potential for our existence been so firmly ingrained into the universe?
Look at it this way: You can have an infinite number of monkeys hammering away at an infinite number of typwriters for an infinite period of time and, sure, they will recreate the works of shakespeare - but they will NOT create the universe. Why? Because the potential for them to do so is not afforded. Without a typewriter they cannot reproduce the works of Shakespeare now, can they?

So I think that's a more pressing question.

And I, personally, am agnostic.

[Anonyman No.4979562]

>>4979510
I also believe that whatever makes up god and his reality is not bound by time and space, and thus is an everlasting existence that always been there, and is in fact composed of energy.
There can be no such thing as getting born and dying outside of our universe, cause if everything had a beginning, we could not even exist.
Because then there would have been a point where nothing existed, and the very first being had to be produced from nothing.
That is fundamentally impossible, no matter what perspective you unleash on it. (except those who believe in fairy tales).

God may very well have created our universe to produce more energy, as moving matter leads to new forms of energy, and more energy comes out of it then was needed to create it.

So IMHO, the universe is a huge energy producing facility, that at the same time acts as a learning school for young souls.

[Anonymous No.4979566]

>>4979562
I enjoyed your post immensely up until you said 'young souls'.

What do you mean by this?

[Anonyman No.4979570]

>>4979558
Personally i think its still impossible, take a computer that capable of processing the universe, and let it process random bits, how big are the odds it will eventually create a perfect universe as we perceive it.

Its too unlikely to be so without someone or something having written an algorithm that guarantees the existing condition of life.

Another point is that if you let the monkeys hammer away, they will eventually just create a bunch of loose words that can be conjoined into a Shakespeare, but they would never produce an actual work because someone would have to put the work together.
The monkeys would in fact go on forever, they would produce the required words, but it would never end up in the right order.

I am a creationist btw.

[Anonyman No.4979572]

>>4979566
Our awareness, the more we age, the more clear things become to us, this is a direct result of experiences we go trough in life.

I believe our awareness is natural occurrence that happens beyond our universe, and we get born simply to train it.
Otherwise, what is the point of learning if you die anyway.

[Anonymous No.4979575]

>>4979570
> I am a creationist
That's fine. Most of this board will instantly mock you but I, personally, see nothing wrong with this. So long as you are not willing to profess with absolute affirmation that God does exist. If that is so, then there is no point conversing as neither of us will walk away learning something.

In any case, the analogy with the monkeys is that if you give them an infinite amount of time, they will inevitably produce every possibility with their typewriters that will, eventually, produce the complete works of shakespeare - all in order.

That makes complete logical sense. Now, the real questions are:-
1. Is our universe eternal?
2. Why does it have the potential to establish an 'existence' of some sort.

An infinite number of monkeys on typewriters may produce the works of Shakespeare - but they will not create a universe. Why? Well, look at it this way. If you didn't give those monkeys a typewriter they would not have the potential to produce the works of Shakespeare.
Why does the universe have the potential to create life? That's the more pressing question. Questions of 'why', however, cannot be answered by science.
That's where philosophy steps in.

[Anonyman No.4979583]

>>4979575
Actually, from my creationist point of view, god has to exist.
Or at least an existence that is not bound by time/space.

Otherwise there would have to be a point of origin where nothing existed, and suddenly something came into existence from nothing.
This is impossible from a scientific point of view, so there has to be something more and bigger.

[Anonymous No.4979585]

>>4979572
I see what you're saying.
That's, essentially, the argument of dualism.
I find it quite fascinating and haven't made up my mind on it yet.

Pic related. I'm sure you've heard of Descartes. You should read some of his stuff.

[Anonymous No.4979586]

>>4979583
I, personally, would not agree with the theistic characterisation of 'God'.

God, to me, is the eternal universe. The eternal flow of energy.

[Anonyman No.4979590]

>>4979586
If that would be true, then the universe would be our god.
The sole definition of a god is simply what you make of it, but always something/someone that is responsible for the motion of existence as we know it.

But how do you explain then that our universe exists in the first place?
There has to be something that could have existed forever, but it simply cannot be bound by time/space, because everything bound by it degrades and dies.

[Anonymous No.4979594]

>>4979590
I agree that something has to 'exist forever'. That, to me, is the universe.
The big bang theory is becoming old-fashioned.
God, to me, is energy. The universe is energy. Everything around us is energy. That's the most basic concept of everything.

[Anonyman No.4979595]

>>4979585
Never heard of it, what i claim comes from philosophizing with myself.
But thank you, i will read into it.

[Anonymous No.4979599]

>>4979590
But you associate 'death' with 'ending'. Nothing ends. Energy is constantly 'recycled' into new forms.

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
E = Mc^2
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Death is the end of the composition of one thing. But what composes it then takes the form of something new at 'death'.

[Anonyman No.4979602]

>>4979594
Yes, but our universe also contains matter, if our universe would expand solely on energy, then matter was never needed in the first place.
I do believe however that there is a universe composed of energy only, what i like to think of as real existence.

Because our current existence is what we perceive as true existence because we know nothing beyond it.
If our universe is indeed all there is, then perhaps the Buddhists got it right, and we do reincarnate.

However from my perspective its absolutely useless to let a soul/person got trough an infinite cycle of having to reinvent the same wheel.

To me everything in the universe got an ultimate goal, even the smallest things, reincarnation defeats the purpose of such a goal.

[Anonymous No.4979603]

>>4979602
Oh, but what you don't realise is that ENERGY and MATTER are the same thing. They are interchangeable properties.
E = MC^2

[Anonyman No.4979604]

>>4979599
Yes, but then you believe that matter always existed, while that cannot be true.
Only energy can always exist, matter can be broken down into energy particles, while energy has to be combined in order to create matter.

So if you look at it from an origin perspective, energy can be the only thing that always existed, and never had to be "born".

[Anonymous No.4979605]

>>4979602
Why can't the universe manifest itself, physically, just to enjoy itself?
There are many joys in existing. There are also many negatives. But I feel the former outweighs the latter.

[Anonymous No.4979607]

>>4979604
>So if you look at it from an origin perspective, energy can be the only thing that always existed, and never had to be "born".

Yes, precisely. That's exactly what I've tried to communicate. I apologize if I had done so ineffectively.

[Anonyman No.4979610]

>>4979607
No problem, thats what discussions are for.
I am not a native English spear, so i too can be prone to making a mistake here and there.

[Anonymous No.4979613]

>>4979610
You speak incredibly well.

[Anonymous No.4979617]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?DCMP=OTC-r
ss&nsref=online-news

[Anonyman No.4979619]

>>4979613
Thank you,
Now to be on topic, i also try to join all existing points of views on what we and our universe really are, and where it comes from.

I think every perspective holds a form of truth, and they are all fueled by the desire to know more.
Even religion holds many truths, religion is simply a really old philosophy done by people (prophets) with a greater understanding then the people around them.

I think all perspectives that exist simply do because we are connected to whatever created us, in ways that we cannot perceive or explain.

[Anonyman No.4979621]

>>4979617
Its another possibility i believe in.
That our awareness is indeed projected into a virtual existence, and that our brains are actually the only thing that generate the universe around us as we perceive it.

If it would somehow be possible to exist without a brain, you would probably perceive our universe as a gooey state of matter that moves at varying speeds.

[Anonymous No.4979625]

>>4979621
did you read the entire article?

[Anonyman No.4979627]

>>4979625
I am not a member, but ive read the part about strange information being caught by their detectors.

It reminded me about how i once thought about our universe being virtual, and our brains being responsible for making us thing it exists.

[Anonymous No.4979628]

>>4979627
Right because I don't think they insinuated that our awareness is projected within it.

I'd like to read the full article, if anyone can post it up as several images.

[Anonymous No.4979633]

>>4979599
>Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Oh ho, but it can

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=P-jQUHUF1MU#t=1516s

All the energy (and matter, which is energy) came from nothing, and is balanced out by the negative energy that exists as space itself. The entire universe adds up to zero.

[Anonymous No.4979639]

>>4979633
Einstein isn't wrong, bub.

[Anonymous No.4979640]

>people still believes in duality
>people still believing in platonic existence of substance/form
>mfw materialistic science is based on platonic notion of substance
>mfw no face

[Anonymous No.4979642]

>>4979639
He was wrong about a couple things. Black holes for one.

[Anonyman No.4979643]

>>4979633
Right, i believe "nothing" is actually something, its not fundamental to claim something comes from nothing.

Because try to think about what nothing really is, its nothing, its a state that cannot exist, because it it could, we would not exist.

Nothing is an everlasting state in which actually nothing ever happens.
If something can happen in it, its not nothing, then theres still something that becomes more.

I am personally not really a fan of stephen hawking his perspective, i do acknowledge is brilliancy, but hes too stucked in his own perspective to ever come with a good conjoined theory about existence.

[Anonymous No.4979644]

>>4979642
But definitely not about that. Most of physics relies on that concept.

[Anonyman No.4979647]

>>4979644
Black holes are indeed a work of him is respect a lot.
But i will never acknowledge his perspective on what existence really is, hes way too narrow on that subject.

[Anonymous No.4979651]

>>4979510
>he 'energy' that makes everything around us can't just disappear and reappear out of nowhere

Yes, yes it fucking can. We observe that shit all the fucking time.

[Anonymous No.4979654]

>>4979651
Do you have a source?

I thought energy was finite in that it cannot be created nor destroyed as per e = mc^2 and 'matter cannot be created nor destroyed'

[Anonymous No.4979657]

>>4979486
You only exist once. There is only one universe. There is no fucking god or "deep meaning" to shit.

That is the fucking reality you live in, be a fucking adult and deal with it.

\thread

[Anonyman No.4979661]

>>4979651
No, what we observe is that energy goes somewhere we cannot detect, and reappears from somewhere we cannot detect.

Its like putting something in an invisible box, and taking it out of it again.
It may seem to disappear, but thats only because we lack the technology/senses to make the box visible.

People who think they proofed that energy pops in and out of existence are no different to people who claimed the world is flat, they make their claims because they dont see the whole picture yet.

energy disappearing = huge pile of smoking turds.

[Anonyman No.4979665]

>>4979657
Ah yes, and the world is flat, and is the center of the universe, and theres nothing more then meets the eye.

Thank you o big brilliant one.

[Anonymous No.4979666]

>>4979661
it seems just as mystical as religion, im surprised any scientist would believe this

[Anonymous No.4979668]

>>4979654
>source

Every fucking textbook on quantum mechanics EVER FUCKING WRITTEN.

Also, even in classical mechanics, the conservation of mass/energy isn't actually a fundamental law in the universe. It is a derived law only applicable to systems of homogeneous time. But that is neither here nor there.

[Anonymous No.4979670]

>>4979661

[Anonymous No.4979671]

>>4979668
I'm not saying you're wrong, the hostility is unnecessary.

I don't have any textbooks, would you mind linking me to a credible article?

[Anonymous No.4979674]

All this pseudoscience, this thread makes me so mad.

[Anonymous No.4979675]

>>4979674
>gets mad
>doesnt rectify the stupidity by pointing it out and imparting wisdom
>has no wisdom to impart
>is as dumb as this thread

stay classy /sci/

[Anonymous No.4979689]

>>4979661
>>4979666
>refused to believe science
>thinks there must be some magical explanation

The problem with your shitty reasoning is that we have explained all the shit already. There is no more mystery there. We can actually predict when the energy will disappear and what/when it will return, and explain it in great fucking detail. There are entire libraries on the fucking subject, and thousands of fucking labs to observe that shit.

It is the way the universe operates, and it is understood very very very very very very very well already. All that shit was already discovered and debated over 80 fucking years ago. That shit is not debated any more, it is fucking settled. It is old science by now, and we have already moved on to other questions.

Ya'll need to catch the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.4979691]

>>4979689
but this board doesnt take quantum mechanics seriously, why is that?

[Anonyman No.4979694]

>>4979668
Quantum mechanics are still in baby state, i wouldnt be surprised if 80% of what is generally accepted of it right now turns out to be bull, fueled by being unable to accepts theres a bigger picture.

A lot of scientists are too limited to what they can perceive in the here and now.

...and there it is again, ooooh and there it goes again.
If you perceive something like that, then the most narrow thing they could possible come up with, is that it disappears.

The particles dont disappear, we just lack the tech to see where they go.

[Anonyman No.4979696]

>>4979691
Because there is still so much to discover in that field.

[Anonyman No.4979702]

>>4979689
Besides it may not even disappear, it may simple take a different form we cannot detect yet.

example:, Unknown form <<--Energy-->> Matter

[Anonymous No.4979704]

It just seems unlikely that they disappear into nothingness and reappear from nothingness.

What if they are 'disappearing' somewhere and 'reappearing' from that same 'place', meaning that they are a constant stream of energy that go and come from the same place?

It just seems unlikely that energy can just come from nothing and then disappear into nothingness.

[Anonymous No.4979706]

>>4979704
And to whoever wanted the article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea

They are called virtual particles. I just don't think we can detect where exactly they are popping in and out from.

[Anonyman No.4979707]

>>4979704
Indeed, they either take on a frequency we cannot detect, or they take the form of something entirely different that could very well turn out to be the foundation for both energy and matter.

If energy and matter would share the same foundation, it would explain why energy and matter are interchangeable.

[Anonymous No.4979711]

>>4979671
>>4979671
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss

A video of Krass: fastforward to 10:00ish for the better stuff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdvWrI_oQjY

He will dumb the whole thing down for you.

[Anonymous No.4979715]

>>4979694
Keywords to detect a retard:
>limited to what they can perceive
>narrow minded
>homogeneous time

Also be on the lookout for:
>society
>free your mind
>scientists say
>quantum
>connected

Whoaaa man, like seriously. I understand now, like, everything is connected, shit is deep man.

Faggot, fuck off with your '3 deep 4 u" highschool bullshit. Quantum mechanics is the most accurate theory we have at the the moment, and it has been tested a gazillion times.

[Anonymous No.4979717]

>>4979668
But virtual particles adhere to normal conservation laws of energy/mass. That must mean they are coming from the same source of energy.

[Anonymous No.4979721]

>>4979715
>mfw this post used 'homogenous time':>>4979668

[Anonymous No.4979723]

>>4979721
Hah, shot himself in the foot.

[Anonyman No.4979724]

>>4979715
You can believe whatever you want of-course, but quantum mechanics are not without its flaws.

[Anonymous No.4979728]

>>4979694
>particles don't disappear

This is a silly assumption you make, since we in fact see them disappear.

But instead of actually believing actual observation and science, you hold on to some silly outdated notion. Why? Are you a christian or something? Why do you think the universe must adhere to your shitty beliefs? You hold on to your shitty beliefs, taking them as sacrosanct, despite of actual evidence against them? WTF?

I think you are in the wrong place bro.
/x/-------------------------------->

[Anonymous No.4979729]

>>4979728
That's interesting, I must look into it further. But where are they disappearinto to/into? There must be something...

[Anonymous No.4979734]

>>4979717
>virtual particles adhere to normal conservation laws of energy/mass

Nope.

[Anonyman No.4979735]

>>4979728
The world being flat was also an observation, and the sun rotating around the planet was an observation, black holes also have countless of miss assumption on observations, as do galaxy's.

I am simply stating that particles disappearing, instead of becoming something else, is a huge miss assumption based on observations.

[Anonymous No.4979738]

>>4979734
Okay, you know absolutely nothing and I will now, from this point on, read anything you have to say because you're full of shit.

"Virtual particles exhibit some of the phenomena that real particles do, such as obedience to the conservation laws"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Go suck a dick. Not the guy you're responding to but you're fucking snide elitism just shits me, especially when you know nothing.

[Anonyman No.4979740]

>>4979728
I am creationist, i believe everything exists for a reason, and can be scientifically explained.
But not with observations that only show part of the whole picture.

[Anonymous No.4979741]

>>4979734
is this guy fucking serious?

[Anonymous No.4979742]

>>4979740
>I am a creationist
I really wish you hadn't of said that...
Watch the floodgates open

[Anonymous No.4979744]

>>4979741

I hope not

[Anonymous No.4979745]

QuantIM phuysucs

it's kind of like someone born completely blind with no eyes, trying to find out what it's like to see

[Anonymous No.4979746]

>>4979651

Sauce on picture related?

This thread has already fucked itself, let me fap.

[Anonymous No.4979749]

>>4979738
I knew he was talking shit, anyway.

[Anonyman No.4979751]

>>4979742
A yes, the whole "we have to exist by accident otherwise all our hard research would be for nothing because we wouldnt be in control of it all" is a much more comfy couch to sit in for people who just love observation without thinking further about possible forces of nature being at play.

Just you watch how many things generally accepted now turn out to be dead wrong 25 years from now.

[Anonymous No.4979755]

>>4979751
Like what? You're accusing people of bias when there is no evidence of it.

[Anonyman No.4979757]

>>4979755
isnt it the same with particles disappearing, isnt it an assumption that they really disappear until you truly have ruled out they dont become something else, and then turn into energy again?

[Anonymous No.4979759]

>>4979757
I'm not that guy. You're accusing science of bias, you're clutching at straws.

[Anonymous No.4979760]

>>4979729
>there must be something

Why? This is a very silly assumption you make, with no fucking justification what so ever.

The problem is you have a very shitty and limited understanding of how the universe works. You really haven't observed shit, as you aren't exposed to shit. What the fuck do you actually know about the universe? You know how a very few select human-scale electromagnetic systems work, if fucking anything.

You know nothing of bigger or smaller scales, you know nothing of the other forces in the universe, and you no absolute fuck-all about how the forces of the universe arise from more fundamental concepts.

Then, with your sever lack of fucking knowledge, with your very very very very limited understanding of only the end results of one force, you question....Why does the universe not adhere to my extremely limited observations and understandings?

Do you realize how fucking stupid you sound? The problem isn't just that you lack knowledge, it is that you don't even realize you lack knowledge. You lack so much fucking knowledge, that even your initial premise regarding the universe is fucking shit.

Your questions and whole fucking train of thought is akin to asking if a piece of fruit is happy, or if a table is married. You just fail all around. Your questions are just nonsensical.

[Anonyman No.4979763]

Hardly, i simply wont believe they disappear until evidence is provided that goes further then a simple observation.

Its not grasping at all that any sensor we build can hardly grasp the universe around us.
We are not even able to detect whatever force is at play that we suspect to be dark matter.

Maybe dark matter is a missing link between energy and matter that makes us think that particles can disappear.
Theres just no evidence, only an observation, thats not enough to make a valid claim.

[Anonymous No.4979764]

>>4979760
I'm awaiting your response to this guy pointing our your stupidity: >>4979738

Everyone in this thread is spouting shit as if they are an authority for it. You don't know shit.

[Anonymous No.4979765]

>>4979738
Do you even know what a conservation law is?

[Anonymous No.4979768]

>>4979765
You're fucking dumb. Go click on the hyperlink, shitstain. He used it in the right context.

[Anonyman No.4979769]

>>4979760
So if you are understanding in a field that may very well turn out to be 40% bullshit, then you will acknowledge there is nothing there?

Brilliant science....

[Anonymous No.4979770]

>>4979738
Thanks for pointing that out. That article is worded badly in places, and can be confusing to the layman.

I took the confusing part out for you. You happy now?

[Anonymous No.4979772]

>>4979770
>look you're right, so Ill remove the evidence
>happy?

Explain why he's wrong.
>protip: you can't

[Anonymous No.4979773]

>>4979760
>This is a very silly assumption you make, with no fucking justification what so ever.
All assumptions are not equal. Conservation has stood up to every test thrown at it. It's a completely reasonable assumption.

[Anonymous No.4979774]

>>4979768
The conservation applies to the particles themselves. Not to creation of the particles from the system.The system does not loose any energy when creating the particles.

It is explained in the next paragraph. I can see how you got confused.

[Anonymous No.4979776]

What are virtual particles used for?

I thought they had very limited use.

[Anonymous No.4979778]

>>4979774
How do we know that the system does not lose any energy? We can't even put a quantity on energy, let alone determine how much of it is being used up or not.

[Anonymous No.4979779]

>>4979774
"Borrowed energy" does not violate conservation laws either. It's from the uncertainty principle and is completely legitimate.

[Anonymous No.4979781]

>>4979773
>conservation has stood up to...

No, no it fucking hasn't. The "Conservations" you talk about, are not fundamental laws. There are derived and only apply to certain systems under certain circumstances.

This is really really basic classical physics here, nothing new. All this shit has been known for over a hundred years. Every physics major or minor learns this shit in basic undergrad mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

[Anonymous No.4979785]

>>4979779
>"Borrowed energy" does not violate conservation laws

Trolling?

[Anonymous No.4979786]

>>4979781
Lots of undergrads don't do Hamiltonian mechanics any more.

[Anonymous No.4979789]

>>4979785
It doesn't, the uncertainty principle allows it.

[Anonymous No.4979791]

>>4979786
>implying you don't cover it in Lagrangian dynamics as well

You are completely full of shit. I hope your dad enjoys the tatse.

[Anonymous No.4979793]

So, energy is practically infinite?

[Anonymous No.4979794]

>>4979791
Many don't do that either.

[Anonymous No.4979795]

>>4979789
The uncertainy principle, and the conservation of mass-energy are two different things, Do you even know what the fuck you are talking about?

How does energy just "poping" in from no where not violate conservation of energy?

[Anonymous No.4979796]

>>4979794
The reason I said Hamiltonian is because that was what the course used to be called at my uni but they don't run it any more.

[Anonymous No.4979797]

So, energy is practically infinite????

This stuff is incredibly interesting and, if so, means great things for all of us.

I love quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.4979798]

>>4979795
It's the uncertainty principle. A virtual particle has a life time such that the "borrowed energy" is indistinguishable from zero.

[Anonymous No.4979799]

>>4979794
When did your mom commit suicide?

[Anonymous No.4979800]

>>4979796
>>4979798
>>4979794
Congrats! Ya'll have unlocked until fail mode - Level Romney

Keep up the epic fails!

[Anonymous No.4979801]

>>4979799
>Point out a reality of modem physics courses
>Get called a troll
Because you know the course guide of every university in the world?

[Anonymous No.4979802]

>>4979800
I'm blown away by the weight of your argument.

[Anonymous No.4979803]

>>4979797
.>>4979797
>>4979797
>>4979797
Holy shit, a genuine question and it will never be answered because /sci/ prefers mucking with trolls.
Fuck you guys.

[Anonymous No.4979804]

>>4979797
No, you can borrow it for a short time but you have to give it back.

[Anonymous No.4979805]

>>4979800
>implying Romney doesn't fail x1000 harder then /sci/ trolls

/sci/ Trolls may fuck up the board, but they aren't crooks and they won't destroy america.

[Anonymous No.4979806]

If the Universe were eternal, it would've heat deathed already. By the fact that it didn't, we can deduce that the Universe isn't eternal.

[Anonymous No.4979808]

>>4979806
Can you explain heat death, further?
Why will it happen?
Why is it inevitable?
I thought it was a wild theory.

>>4979804
Someone else said that energy just pops in without using our systems energy at all. Which is right? You guys are incredibly confusing.

[Anonymous No.4979815]

>>4979808
>Someone else said that energy just pops in without using our systems energy at all.
Both statements are true.
The uncertainty principle says that even zero energy has an uncertainty over a finite time. So an energy less than or equal to the uncertainty is indistinguishable from zero energy. That way the virtual particle can "borrow energy" from nothing but it has to give it back.

[Anonymous No.4979822]

>>4979815
>borrow energy from nothing
how is that possible?

[Anonymous No.4979824]

>>4979822
As long as you pay it back, you've got a net zero, so nothing changed. Adding 1 then subtracting 1 to a number as an analogy.

[Anonymous No.4979827]

>>4979822
The way I described. For the time the energy is borrowed the energy of the particle is indistinguishable from zero. Nothing can tell the difference.

[Anonymous No.4979828]

This has always been one of the most divisive issues in physics, and to a similar extent philosophy. Physics seems more focused on interpreting empirical data and developing universal models that accommodate and explain our observations than axiomatic definitions of logic. It Only strives to establish congruity between these different perceptions, usually by applying mathematical logic to them, hence David Mermen’s famous quote on the philosophical implications of Schrodinger’s equation, “Shut up and calculate!” Concerning the question of the universe’s origin, the two fields overlap. We can make empirical observations about the universe, and potentially create a cosmological chronology dating to the very first moments of existence, when the very dimensions of time space may not have existed as we know them. But this raises philosophical questions about the nature of time and space, are they features of reality that constrain and define logic, and can we think of existence in terms other than time and space? Without time, space, and order, is there anything left that might be called existence? These are questions that could be avoided by merely assuming that the universe has always existed, in one form or another, which does not require unintuitive ontological theories. Yet even this may present difficulties, because it proposes no initial cause from which every subsequent cause stems, and because it is essentially circular (though one may be accept this with some form of nihilism, like Nietzsche did).

[Anonymous No.4979829]

>>4979824
But to add 1, they need a source. Where are they adding it from?

It's odd that you can just have 0, and it adds 1 to itself then subtracts it.

[Anonymous No.4979835]

>>4979829
I dont know, it doesnt make sense

It's like energy creates itself then destroys itself

[Anonymous No.4979852]

>>4979835
It seems to defy logic

[Anonymous No.4979885]

yes

[Anonymous No.4979908]

???

[Anonymous No.4979962]

does anyone know?

[Anonymous No.4979982]

>>4979829

Mathematically it's very simple and makes sense. You have energy (1) and negative energy (-1) . 1+ -1=0

It's hard to wrap your head around, but it's essentially saying that you can borrow energy from nothing but it leaves a deficit.

It's like digging a hole. The deeper the hole becomes the higher the dirt pile becomes, only instead of dirt you have empty space and matter.

[Anonymous No.4979985]

Or maybe just maybe its something we cannot comprehend.

Its like putting ants in new york and asking them to comprehend, the reason for life, the universe ect may be something we will never be able to understand or even evolve to understand.

Speculating is fun but people talk about this stuff as if it is fact.

>The particles dont disappear, we just lack the tech to see where they go.

Or maybe they do disappear the reasons being something are human minds cannot comprehend.

>>4979661

or maybe it does and you dont see the whole picture yet.

[Anonymous No.4979986]

>>4979985

our*

[Anonymous No.4981251]

>>4979982
But what is it digging a deficit in?
It can't be 'nothing'. How can you dig a deficit in nothing when there is nothing to dig?
There must be something there that we don't understand yet.

[Anonymous No.4981262]

>>4981251
But the idea is that you haven't really borrowed anything. The amount of energy "borrowed" is so small that the laws of physics can't tell it's missing, it's indistinguishable from zero. You don't need a source to borrow from if you aren't taking anything.

[Anonymous No.4981278]

Nah

[Anonymous No.4981411]

>>4981262
> the laws of physics can't tell it's missing
So it's 'cheating the system' so to speak?
Isn't that amazing? I just find it incredibly weird that you can do something so-long as the 'universe' isn't aware of it,

[Anonymous No.4981439]

>>4981411
umm

[Anonymous No.4981527]

>>4981411
guise?

[Anonymous No.4981574]

>>4979520
>Then why give us an expiration date? Why go through the unnecessary process of evolution to get us to this stage?
I forget if we have or not, but I know that many scientists were interested in creating simulations of evolution to study it. Perhaps we're one such simulation to show how far we can evolve.

[Anonymous No.4981586]

>>4979590
There's always that theory of "big bang to big crunch to big bang to big crunch ad infinitum"

[Anonymous No.4981593]

>>4981411
Yes what you said is correct, although it isn't cheating. Those are the laws of physics, they allow it. It's like a tax loophole, it's completely legitimate it just feels wrong.

[Anonymous No.4981619]

>>4981586
What's that and how likely is that?

[Anonymous No.4981656]

>>4981619
*** and how likely is it?

[Anonymous No.4981732]

>>4981656
infinitely possible

[Anonymous No.4981766]

>>4981619
After every big bang (expansion) is a big crunch, when the matter that makes the universe once again becomes a singular point. Which then explodes and expands into the big bang. Which then crunhces. Then explodes. Forever.

[Anonymous No.4981794]

>>4981766
>big brunch
Full retard. Go learn some modern cosmology.

[Anonymous No.4981841]

Alright, let's consider that the universe did indeed have a limited amount of variables which could decide what and whatnot can exist. Supposedly, there are an infinite amount of scenarios since they're isn't such a number to describe the possibilities; however, what if multi-dimensional universes actually existed? It could be possible that in one of those particular universes that you were alive at this very exact moment if another string of events didn't derail your current existence.

Such an idea is bigger than the universe itself as we see it. There's nothing to explain or support such an idea, but it is fascinating. I do believe that we live in a universe of limits unfortunately, so none of these ideas are likely true.

[Anonymous No.4981842]

>>4981794
I wish I had a big brunch. I'm freaking hungry.

[Anonymous No.4981847]

>>4981794
>implying modern cosmology is any more definite

[Anonymous No.4981850]

>>4981847

We're all pulling bullshit out of our asses to explain what is clearly beyond us.

[Anonymous No.4981855]

The existence of the universe is cyclical; physical reality is eternal.
Why else would I be me, right now?

>>4981850
Why call it bullshit

[Anonymous No.4981874]

>>4981855

Call it hope, beliefs, or whatever you decide.

[Anonymous No.4981887]

>>4981874
what

[Anonymous No.4981888]

>>4981887

That's an interesting thing to call it.

[Anonymous No.4981893]

>>4981888
To call what, nigger?

[Anonymous No.4981934]

Interesting

[Anonymous No.4981952]

>>4981855
Because the evidence is clearly against any big crunch and clearly for a heat death.

[Anonymous No.4981954]

>>4979628
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15765052/Our-World-May-Be-a-Giant-Hologram

Remember to try googling the title of the article in the future.

[Anonymous No.4981966]

>>4981952
It's not as clear as you'd like it to be.

[Anonymous No.4982037]

someone explain heat death to me

[Anonymous No.4982040]

>>4982037
If you get too hot, then U have a stroke an dye.

[Anonymous No.4982051]

>>4982040
Why is the universe heating up?
Why is it heating up as if it is one entity?

[Anonymous No.4982063]

>>4982051
OH LAWWD, DA UNIVERSE 'BOUT TA HAVE A STROKE OR A BIG OL' HOT ASS SHIT.

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae181.cfm

[Anonymous No.4982074]

>>4982037
>>4982051
it's not heating up. the spread of heat is just becoming more uniform. The only way to do work is transfer energy from a warm area to a colder one. Eventually (assuming no big crunch or whatever) heat distribution will become completely uniform and no work can be done. heat death.

[Anonymous No.4982078]

>>4982074
How can it be prevented?

What do you mean by 'do work'?

[Anonymous No.4982091]

Hinduism has it right

Everything that has happened, will happen again

The universe expands, reaches a limit, and compresses again, then it bigbangs again and the cycle begins again
If laws of physics dont change in between this cycles, then the new bigbang should make a universe identical to ours in all aspects.

The universe has been creating itself, growing and dying for who knows how long in an infinte cycle of the same shit happening exactly the same again and again and again....

[Anonymous No.4982092]

>>4982078
prevented? you can't. it is either going to happen or it's not. if the big crunch or some other theory is correct, then it wont happen. if it's not, then heat death is bound to occur. it is the second law of thermodynamics. By do work, i mean use energy. You can only use energy by increasing entropy. If entropy is at maximum (heat death) then no energy cannot be used. The universe will essentially be completely static.

[Anonymous No.4982098]

>>4982091
Will it use the same energy?

[Anonymous No.4982102]

There is very strong evidence indicating that the universe is past-finite, even if the multiverse/higher dimensional cosmology shows to be correct. There are models where the universe is infinite into the future, but they are in their preliminary stages.

[Anonymous No.4982104]

>>4982091

>The universe expands, reaches a limit, and compresses again, then it bigbangs again and the cycle begins again

The cyclical model has been so utterly refuted...

[Anonymous No.4982106]

>>4982098

obviously

[Anonymous No.4982219]

>>4982104
has it?

[Anonymous No.4982243]

>>4982106
why 'obviously'?

can't new energy be created?

[Anonymous No.4982278]

>>4982243
Hey buddy have you ever heard of entropy.

[Anonymous No.4982279]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.4982281]

>>4982278
have you heard about popscience?

[Anonymous No.4982342]

>>4982243
>>4982243
Can someone please answer this?

No, I have not heard about entropy.

[Anonymous No.4982355]

>>4982243
Yes it can anon.
If you ever feel like dying to help the universe, just let me know. I’ll be waiting.

[Anonymous No.4982358]

>>4982355
Where is it created from?

I don't understand what the rest of your post means.

No, I have not heard about entropy.

[Anonymous No.4982360]

>>4979486
I remember my prof told us on the matter that eventually, given an infinite amount of time, we WILL see cofee boil AFTER we get it from the vending mashine. I'm still waiting for that day.

[Anonymous No.4982364]

>>4982358
Just Make a wish, and become a Puella Magi for me Anon. For the sake of this universe.

[Anonymous No.4982368]

Haha!

Please guys, I would appreciate serious answers.

[Anonymous No.4982371]

>>4982368
then, do serious, more informed questions or go to /x/. You're not asking anything that makes us feel that you at least skimmed through wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.4982374]

I wouldn't know where to begin.

1. Can new energy be created?

2. If so, from what source?

Simple answers will do and will cleanse this thread of any further faggotry on my part.

[Anonymous No.4982376]

What is love, /sci/ ? I don't what shitty unscientific explanation

[Anonymous No.4982379]

>>4982376
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

[Anonymous No.4982384]

>>4982374
I'd like to know, too

[Anonymous No.4982396]

>>4982374
Yes and no

The net energy of the universe is, and must remain, zero

But what you refer to as "energy" should actually be called "positive energy", yes you can create as much of that as you want, out of nothing, provided you also create an equal amount of negative energy at the same time. The universe is capable of creating all the positive and negative energy it wants, out of nothing, because its not creating anything at all, it all adds up to zero.

[Anonymous No.4982400]

>>4982374
Simple answers. sure.

1. You can't, period.
2. there's no way to do it, since it can't be done.

Now, theres slighly complex answers though.
First, our understanding of the universe will probably never be at 100%, perhaps there are ways to do it we don't know yet.
Don't bet on it though.

Second, theorically, yes. You can 'create' energy. But this energy would get 'destroyed' really fast, at the same rate you created it.
I wouldn't be able to explain it, perhaps an expert on quantum awesome stupendulous psychich chemistry would be able to. (to this point, it doesn't matter if the degree is real)

[Anonymous No.4982415]

>>4982396
But what is 'zero'? It's as if the universe exists and does not exist at the time.

Oh, and I appreciate the answers

[Anonymous No.4982421]

>>4982415
Imagine the desert. Flat and featureless.

You can create a mountain in this desert, by digging. But you will also make a mountain sized hole in the desert. You have created the mountain from nothing, because the mountain and the hole add up to zero, so you didnt create anything at all.

The universe is the desert. The energy and mass in the universe is the mountain. Space, and the tension of forces within it, is the hole.

[Anonymous No.4982424]

>>4982421
Brilliant analogy. That is absolutely wonderful, I shall use that for times to come.

One last question: In a desert the terrain is made of a 'substance'. So you are digging into 'something'. What is being dug 'into' in the universe to create this energy?

I thought the universe was wholly energy.

[Anonymous No.4982427]

>>4982424
I wish I could take credit but I cribbed it off this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-jQUHUF1MU#t=1516s

You're asking what the very nature of the universe is, that allows for it to exist at all. Why is our universe able to create energy and matter out of nothing? Why does the universe exist at all? That's an age old question, and no one knows the answer.

[Anonymous No.4982439]

>>4982427
Thanks for the video and answers, friend.
So I guess it was a misconception to assume that the universe is, in itself, energy?

One last question: In a desert the terrain is made of a 'substance'. So you are digging into 'something'. What is being dug 'into' in the universe to create this energy?

I thought the universe was wholly energy.

[Anonymous No.4982441]

>>4982439
Ignore this bit:
>One last question: In a desert the terrain is made of a 'substance'. So you are digging into 'something'. What is being dug 'into' in the universe to create this energy?
>I thought the universe was wholly energy.

[Anonymous No.4982444]

>>4982439
>So I guess it was a misconception to assume that the universe is, in itself, energy?
Yes that is a misconception. Energy is something you find in the universe, in various forms, such as mass, motion, light, sound, or speed, but not the universe itself.

[Anonymous No.4982450]

Fuck all the retarded comments above this post ^ that believe the universe is anything BUT eternal.
It is so illogical that it just fucking stops somewhere.
I know everyone likes to think laterally. look in front of you, what do you see? a fucking computer screen, but what about inbetween you and the computer screen, oxygyn, c02, but look deeper, and you will find the raw fabric of the cosmos. now that exists right in front of your fucking head, to state that there is anywhere in the universe where it just stops is fucking potato down syndrome.
>tl;dr time has always existed, infinatley in the past, it never began at one point (although this will fuck your mind, just deal with it, its infinity, infinity exists)
>the universe is infinate
>infinity exists
>its illogical
>we live in an illogical place.

[Anonymous No.4982454]

>>4982450
That's exactly what I'm saying. Infinity is actually very logical.

I think that there is no such thing as 'nothingness'.

[Anonymous No.4982459]

>>4982454
yes, i would say it is the lesser of two evils.
But still, i lie in bed at nights, thinking about how time has always existed, something thats been there forever. forever in the past. its a shocking concept, and its so illogical its something that makes me feel theres alot more to this

[Anonymous No.4982462]

>>4982459
It's absurdly beautiful.

[Anonymous No.4982463]

>>4982459
and there is. its a deeply disturbing thing, its not just a matter of an unknown, its an unknown with no answer.... there is no answer.

[Anonymous No.4982465]

>>4979570
>I am a creationist

That was the icing on the piece of shit cake you just typed. An infinite amount of monkeys typing infinity would create all Shakespeare works eventually. Trust a creationist not to grasp the concept of infinity. With an never ending amount of time occurring and a never ending amount of monkeys at work it would be expected that such a coincidence would fall into place eventually.

[Anonymous No.4982467]

>using years

[Anonymous No.4982469]

>>4982465
>Trust a creationist
Ad hominems are the lowest form of rebuttal.

[Anonymous No.4982473]

>>4982467
wut

[Anonymous No.4982474]

>>4982450
I understand that it's hard to apply logic to something outside of our existence. There really is no logic to it. But there's a very good possibility there is.

[Anonymous No.4982477]

>>4982469
I don't even give a fuck. Creationism is the lowest form of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4982479]

>>4982474
What? That it's eternal or otherwise?

[Anonymous No.4982483]

>>4982450
The universe is unlimited, but not infinite.

[Anonymous No.4982486]

Humans are an anomaly in the universe. It's crazy.

[Anonymous No.4982487]

>>4982474
applying logic is all we can really do to even have a conversation about this, otherwise we could just say, we dont know, so theres a chance the cosmos was made from smegma, god was jelquing when he slipped, which is why they call it the milky way

[Anonymous No.4982488]

>>4982479
Otherwise. Who knows, Maybe our universe is eternal and there is something beyond our idea of eternity. It's kind of hard to imagine anything once you strip the fundamental laws of physics out of the equation.

[Anonymous No.4982494]

>>4982486
Are we?

[Anonymous No.4982514]

Ah, no, but it does mean that a person identical to you should reexist sooner or later.

[Anonymous No.4982557]

wow

[Anonymous No.4982592]

This thread is fucking retarded. /sci/ needs to be deleted.

[Anonymous No.4982604]

>>4982592
In what way, retard?

[Anonymous No.4982614]

>>4982604
not that guy, but
>misinformation everywhere
>pseudoscience everywhere
>high schoolers assuming they know everything about the universe
>subpar "trolling" that would make even reddit laugh
>no one even really attempts to answer OP's question

[Anonymous No.4982616]

>>4982614
Feel free to answer it.

Also, there is a bit of misinformation but there is also quite a bit of quality content + sources. Making general statements without substantiating it make you look incredibly unintelligent.

[Anonymous No.4982631]

Something has to be infinite, its like the question of "if there is a god, where did god come from?", you have to go back over and over, there can't be a starting point, so things have to be infinite.

I just can't comprehend that, therefore I think we will never be able to fully understand the universe.

[Anonymous No.4982725]

>>4982631
Indeed.

[Anonymous No.4982826]

Fascinating