[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 855 KB, 1920x1080, Also God.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5797778 No.5797778 [Reply] [Original]

If you wanted to define our universe in the broadest possible terms, could it potentially be done with only three words: space, time and energy?
Seeing as energy would also account for mass and matter. That about covers it all right? I realize this is being horribly reductionist, but humor me. Are there other things that strictly need to be taken into account?

>> No.5797783

universe is already defined in one word, that word is universe

>> No.5797782

>>5797778
>If you wanted to define our universe in the broadest possible terms
"Everything."

>> No.5797784

u only need 1.5 words: info-cognition

>> No.5797789

Reductionist is fine. Being horribly vague is not. I don't know what the fuck you're asking. "Define our universe?" Huh?

>> No.5797790

>>5797782
>>5797783
Alright, wise guys.

>>5797789
I guess I was being a bit vague.
Just say you had to group everything in the universe into a small amount of groups. The groups I chose are Space, Time and Energy. Space and Time could probably be lumped together, but for the sake of this I'm keeping them separate. Energy, then, takes care of damn near everything else that exists in Spacetime. Matter, waves, mass, etc. Unless some things don't fit into these three categories, then I think I'll stop at 3 groups.

>> No.5797793

You need to understand that physicists now have to take the energy content of 'empty' space into account as a standard practice.

The universe as understood now is composed of about 70% dark energy (something which permeates spacetime), about 30% dark matter (some form of particle or particles), and less than 1% of baryonic matter (gas, dust, stars, planets, moons, comets, life like us).

So that's how I'd do it in three phrases: Dark energy, dark matter, and baryonic matter. Or in just three words: Impetus, matter, froth. All that tends to concern you is the froth. The vast majority of the universe is simply beyond Human experience.

>> No.5797797

>>5797793
where does radiation fall then?

>> No.5797817

>>5797790

So it's some kind of "everything is a form of 'energy' " new age bullshit? Energy is not a substance. It is a property that things have. If you want to put elementary "stuff" into categories, read about the standard model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model

It still doesn't include gravity, but it covers just about everything else.

But time and space are not "stuff," either, they are physical quantities. If THAT is what you're interested in, then you want base units:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_base_unit

All physical quantities can be defined in distance, mass, duration, electric current, temperature, luminous intensity, and amount of substance.

This includes energy, btw, which is defined as mass*(distance)^2/(duration)^2

>> No.5797828

>>5797817
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not attempting to formulate some new age bullshit of a framework here, I'm simply looking to view it in a particular way. To be honest, I'm writing something that'd be best were it more concise, and in doing so I'm trying to split the universe into coherent and fun ways. Thus, I've come to Space, Time and Energy, which I find quite fun.

Don't let this deter you, I do have some physics knowledge on my back. I understand the SI units and the standard model for the most part, though to be honest I never thought to look there.

On another note, I do believe that matter is a form of energy, albeit very dense. I think of the energy-mass equivalence literally.

>>5797793
Ooh, I surely will have to work in some dark energy/matter. Thanks for the thought!

>> No.5797943
File: 292 KB, 806x746, einbrain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5797943

Space = energy(matter)
Time = electricity(magnetism)

>> No.5797944

>>5797797

Radiation is part of the froth. It's not baryonic matter, mostly, but it's close enough.

We just don't know what composes 99%+ of the universe, as structure or action. That's amazing.

>> No.5797950

>>5797817

Correct. Energy is merely the ability to perform work. You can't have a tank filled with "energy". People who believe that have watched too much Star Trek (although with the recent introduction of Alice Eve, one can't blame them, HNNNG!).

>> No.5797957

>>5797950
Yes you can have a tank full of energy. but indirectly.

>> No.5797991

>>5797950
>Energy is merely the ability to perform work.
Fuck You. that hasn't been the definition of energy for over 100 years. Just becasue the =y still teach this outdated shit in highschool doesn't mean its correct. energy is the constant of motion conjugate to time.

>> No.5798031

>>5797950

samus and megaman disagree

>> No.5798055

>>5797991
>wahhwahhh muh quantums proved muh classical wrong
Get a load of this faggot.

>> No.5798077

>>5798055
>quantums proved muh classical wrong
are you retarded? "energy is the constant of motion conjugate to time" is a result of Neothers theorem, a theorem in CLASSICAL mechanics. QM has nothing to do with this, please dont respond if you know nothing about the subject. thank you.

>> No.5798119

>dark matter
>dark energy
>gravity
>time
You people say you're reductionists?!

Let's start this out all easy. Time and gravity are both side effects of entropy, kay? And IF we get rid of these and rederive the physical laws, what goes away?

...

Dark matter / energy!!!

Now we're thinking with rationality.

>> No.5798126

>>5798119
>Time and gravity are both side effects of entropy, kay? And IF we get rid of these and rederive the physical laws, what goes away?
>...
>Dark matter / energy!!!
Source?

>> No.5798130

>>5798126
besides Less Wrong, I mean

>> No.5798134

>>5798119
>Time and gravity are both side effects of entropy

Actually it's the other way around.

>> No.5798138

>>5798077
>wahhwahhhwahh ur rong again lol loser
The fag keeps fagging.

>> No.5798139

>>5798126

Entropic Gravity and Dark Energy, Matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/11/gravity-doesnt-exist-is-gravity-an-illusion.html
http://www.bctp.uni-bonn.de/data/files/VerlindePoster.pdf
Anything by Verlinde

Timelessness and Dark Matter, Energy:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time
http://www.telegram.com/article/20120426/COLUMN21/104269882/0
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar/09-is-einsteins-greatest-work-wrong-didnt-go-far
Anything by Barbour

>> No.5798140

>>5798134
Howso

>> No.5798151

The four-volume of spacetime which is connected to the observer's local frame of reference without having to pass through specific phenomena (negative energy densities, false vacuum decay wavefronts, singularities, etc.), and occasionally everything in the aforementioned volume as well.

>> No.5798159

>>5798138
Not him, but you should probably just leave

>> No.5798168

>>5798139
>http://www.bctp.uni-bonn.de/data/files/VerlindePoster.pdf
wut

>> No.5798174

>>5798130
I actually don't understand the reasons for all the hate against Less Wrong on this board. When you ignore the cultist posters there, what Eliezer Yudkowsky says isn't actually that far off-base.

>> No.5798183

>>5798138
Are you literally 16?

>> No.5798194

>>5798139
how about some actual sources?

>> No.5798202

>>5798159
>not him but i'm going to shitpost anyways
Dumb shit.

>> No.5798216

>>5798194
http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785