/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5873028]

According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. If that is true, then where did the "first" available energy come from? If this law applies to any form of energy, then the first form of energy had to come from somewhere. If it could not be created, according to the law, then how did it come to existence?

[Anonymous No.5873064]

>>5873028
I get that it's a troll, but let's see if I can handle this for you or someone else that might see it and be interested.

You're limiting what you know about the functionality of the universe to your own specific brand of logic. Given that no one knows exactly how the universe functions (any good scientist will let you know this), therefore there must be a gap in our knowledge. The logic you apply when you rationalize things is a result of observation and knowledge, therefore - given that you do not know everything about the functionality of the universe - your logic system in regards to the universe is incomplete. The only thing we know is that, so far, the Law of Thermodynamics appears to apply in all the observations we made, which is certainly a much smaller number of iterations than can be.

This isn't even considering that things like "laws" only function in a homogeneous, ordered universe. Any good scientist that actually cares for accuracy will tell you that, from what we can observe and have observed, the parts of the universe we have observed appear to function in a logical, ordered manner. We are still assuming homogeneity.

[Anonymous No.5873066]

Increasing the mass of the universe increases the total gravitational potential energy of the universe. Gravitational potential energy is always negative. The negative energy always equals the positive energy, so that the total is zero.

[Anonymous No.5873067]

nigger

[Anonymous No.5873070]

>>5873066

lol

zero energy universe is bullshit

[Anonymous No.5873073]

nigger

captcha says it all

[Anonymous No.5873076]

>>5873070

Thank you, Dr. Hawking.

[Anonymous No.5873088]

>>5873064
Isn't there some kind of rabbid speculation over dark matter being the producers of energy?
And this still goes against science because the universes expanssion should be slowing down, and as far as scientists know it isn't.
Yes i know i added to your point more than i argued against it, I'm just interested in the subject and want to pry more info out of you

[Anonymous No.5873117]

>>5873076

there's no such thing as negative energy. and there's no reason to believe that potential energy and kinetic energy have to be balanced.

fuck you ben franklin for giving physics a fucked up convention and giving the opportunity for people to make stupid metaphysical models

[Anonymous No.5873123]

>>5873117
Sure, let's just throw symmetry out the window.

[Anonymous No.5873153]

>>5873123

it's already out the window. that's obvious to anyone who took a highschool class.

designating potential energy as negative is a convention that has no bearing on physical reality

[Anonymous No.5873514]

>>5873117
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

lawrence krauss would like to have a talk with you

[Anonymous No.5873833]

>>5873153
Maybe you should stop trying to apply a highschool understanding of physics to the problem. Or maybe no one really needs a PhD anyway. Maybe you'll be the one to prove thermodynamics wrong.

[Anonymous No.5873853]

>>5873833

thermodynamics doesn't have anything to do with the total energy content of the universe.

we know the universe is chiral
we know that matter dominates anti-matter
there's CP violations and breaking of symmetry at quantum levels

what makes you think there has to be some pipedream of a 0 energy universe?

[Anonymous No.5873856]

>>5873117
> there's no reason to believe that potential energy and kinetic energy have to be balanced.
yes. fuck observations and experimental evidence.

[Anonymous No.5873857]

>>5873853
see
>>5873856

[Anonymous No.5873860]

God

Checkmate atheists

[Anonymous No.5873884]

>>5873028
The total sum of the energy of the universe is zero.

\thread

[Anonymous No.5873888]

>>5873860
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CclzM_Be0Qg&t=0m49s

[Anonymous No.5873897]

>>5873853

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing

[Anonymous No.5873901]

>>5873897

[Anonymous No.5873920]

>>5873514
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

he didn't actually say anything

[Anonymous No.5873926]

>>5873920
see
>>5873897

Krauss takes a goddam hour to explain all this shit to your ignorant ass from the ground up. He explains our modern understaning of cosmology, including why the universe has "0" total energy.

Ain't my fault you refuse to listen.

[Anonymous No.5873943]

>>5873926

he said it could come from nothing, but it was literally all popsci shit

unlike you guys, I actually study physics and have worked on research related to what he's talking about, and I don't buy what he's saying

[Anonymous No.5873948]

>>5873943
Troll harder

0/100

[Anonymous No.5873957]

>>5873943
>Krauss explains the methods and instruments used to measure and prove the universe is flat with 0 total energy

>This is all very well understood shit, taught to literally every cosmologist, astronomer, and physicist

>Anon calls this popscience

0/100

Don't you have anything better to do than troll /sci/?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[Anonymous No.5873962]

>>5873926
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[Anonymous No.5873970]

>>5873948
>>5873957
>>5873962
Samefag harder, shitposter.

If you knew anything about physics, you'd post an actual academic source instead of shallow pop sci drivel. Go play with the other edgy 14 year olds who think they know everything after watching a youtube video.

[Anonymous No.5873979]

>>5873957

lol. apparently you don't have any reading comprehension

but a 0 total energy flat universe isn't taught to everyone because it's still up for debate

as far as that actual presentation is concerned, it was more about meta-physics philosophy and shitty political jokes than anything science related.

[Anonymous No.5874004]

>>5873979
>>5873970
Obvious troll is obvious

[Anonymous No.5874007]

>>5873028
Good question.

The universe has 0 total energy OP. It is all laid out for you here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[Anonymous No.5874015]

>>5874004
How about you go back to >>>/b/ or >>>/x/?

>>5874007
Stop spamming that video link. We want to talk about actual science here and we're not interested in your preschool nonsense.

[Anonymous No.5874016]

>>5873979
>>5873970

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

"We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error."

[Anonymous No.5874020]

>>5874015
Troll Harder kid

Here is a good video to educate yourself on cosmology and shit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[Anonymous No.5874024]

>>5874020
I know more cosmology than you, fucktard. That video is for children. Are you aware that 4chan is an 18+ site? Grow up and educate yourself. This is a serious discussion board and not your elementary school's playground.

[Anonymous No.5874029]

>>5874020
>cosmology
huehuehue

We're talking about astrology and not about make-up, you funny guy.

[Anonymous No.5874031]

>>5874016

flat universe =/= 0 energy universe

[Anonymous No.5874035]

>>5874024
>Ad hominems

>Can't actually refute any of Krausses points (or modern cosmlogy in general)

You are such a sad troll. Here let me help you.

This is a good link that explains basic cosmology and shit for the layman (like you):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Here is a a layeman link from NASA, confiming that we know the universe is flat: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

This stuff should be easy enough for you to follow. Good luck!

[Anonymous No.5874036]

>>5874029
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology

[Anonymous No.5874039]

>>5874035

the thing is, krauss didn't make any points in any of the videos posted in this thread, so there's nothing to refute

but there are several alternative ideas as to how a flat universe could exist w/o 0 total energy.

also, klauss and hawkings weren't the first to talk about it

also, see
>>5874031

[Anonymous No.5874041]

>>5874035
Why the fuck would I refute cosmology? How illiterate are you? I'm telling you to GTFO because you cannot contribute anything to this thread. This is the 5th time you spammed that youtube link and it's still not what we need or want here. We want to talk about actual science and not pop sci dumbed down into incorrectness and mixed up with pseudo-philosophy for 5 year olds. You are clearly too young and too uneducated to participate in an academic debate, so please stop posting.

[Anonymous No.5874044]

>>5874041
>>5874035

he's so science illiterate that he can't tell the difference between pop-sci drivel and real research

[Anonymous No.5874047]

>>5874041

Check this out if you are interested in cosmology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[Anonymous No.5874049]

>>5874041
Can you even name the four basic pieces of evidence for big bang theory without looking at the wikipedia page?

[Anonymous No.5874052]

>>5874049

implying that matters......

I was part of the stochastic research group of LIGO and you don't need to know every little detail to make relevant contributions or talk about this stuff in specific

[Anonymous No.5874055]

>>5874052
So, you were a grad student running the numbers for the actual researches? Or were you just the janitor?

So, you don't know the first things about cosmology, and you're the one bitching that the rest of us don't know what we're talking about?

Ass.

[Anonymous No.5874058]

>>5874052
Cool, me too!

Check this out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[Anonymous No.5874061]

>>5874049
Sheldon, Leonard, Howard, Rajesh

[Anonymous No.5874062]

>>5874055

no, the point is, is that the idea of a 0 energy universe has nothing to do with our actual observations of the universe.

there's a lot of explanations about how a flat universe could exist, and talking about the standard model or the big bang or anything like that has nothing to do with the fact that krauss's theory is more unverifiable theoretical bullshit (like string theory)

[Anonymous No.5874066]

>>5874055

i worked directly under the head of the stochastic research in undergrad and did some computer simulations about the sensitivity of interferometer we used. I also worked with another undergrad adjusting the shock absorbers on the mirrors that made up the interferometer (which was janitor work).

The opinion of the head at the time was that if we don't find any spacetime distortion from gravitational waves proposed by einstein's GR in the next couple years, that we'll have to re-evaluate the validity of the theory. And that would throw all of this string theory and zero energy stuff out the window

[Anonymous No.5874068]

>>5874062
>there's a lot of explanations about how a flat universe could exist, and talking about the standard model or the big bang or anything like that has nothing to do with the fact that krauss's theory is more unverifiable theoretical bullshit (like string theory)
Do you agree that quantum fluctuations plus some inflation could be the start of our observed local big bang?

[Anonymous No.5874069]

>>5874068

no, because inflation could occur before the big bang happened

[Anonymous No.5874070]

>>5874066
>doubting gravity waves
Where the hell have you been?

http://www.skatelescope.org/the-science/gravity-einstein-pulsars/pulsars-gravitational-waves/
>The existence of gravitational waves was confirmed about 30 years ago with radio pulsars.
We've run the numbers of the rate of orbital decay of binary pulsars. Matches perfectly with GR.

[Anonymous No.5874071]

>>5874068

couldn't

[Anonymous No.5874074]

>>5874069
I asked if it's possible, not if it's confirmed. Is that consistent with the evidence? Is the quantum fluctuation explanation consistent with the known evidence? Do you have some evidence or reason that some other explanation is preferred? I'm not arguing that the quantum fluctuation explanation is confirmed - merely that it's plausible and consistent with the known evidence.

[Anonymous No.5874075]

>>5874070

lel

it fits GR, but we haven't been able to detect the waves directly, which is what LIGO and the future LISA will be doing

[Anonymous No.5874077]

>>5874075
AFAIK, LIGO is looking for waves from different sources. It's not looking for gravity waves from binary stars in the "death spiral". Thus, gravity waves can survive, but other parts of cosmology can change to explain why we might not see gravity waves from other sources, such as those other sources don't behave like we expect them to.

[Anonymous No.5874078]

>>5874074

we don't have any evidence of anything before the "light wall" that krauss talks about

there's a ton of first causes, but quantum fluctuation + inflation doesn't make any sense. it's still dodging an important question

[Anonymous No.5874079]

>>5874078
You still haven't answered my question. Is it consistent with the known evidence?

>there's a ton of first causes, but quantum fluctuation + inflation doesn't make any sense. it's still dodging an important question
What important question is that?

[Anonymous No.5874084]

>>5874077

you're absolutely correct. LIGO screens for different kinds of events that could cause the waves, and they haven't found anything yet, so the reasons you suggested have been explored, and LIGO's sensitivity has been improved to try to make those reasons a non-factor.

We don't know why we haven't seen them yet, but at some point we'll have to strongly reconsider what's going on.

[Anonymous No.5874083]

>>5874078
And why doesn't it make any "sense"? It seems like a consistent, coherent, and possibly testable scientific model to me.

[Anonymous No.5874082]

>>5874062
The universe having 0 total energy is a pretty trivial calculation that any grad studnet can do. But since you faggots insist on a source.

International Journal of Theoretical Physics
November 2009, Volume 48, Issue 11, pp 3278-3286: "On the Zero-Energy Universe"
Marcelo Samuel Berman

Also, here is a great video explaining it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs

[Anonymous No.5874086]

>>5874084
Sure. I don't think throwing out gravity waves is the likely answer. Then again, I'm not well versed. Given the known binary pulsar data, throwing out gravity waves altogether seems quite unlikely.

[Anonymous No.5874087]

>>5874079

why were there quantum fluctuations and inflation to begin with?

from what we understand, those things only existed after the universe started. if that's not the case, then that means the big bang wasn't the start of our universe and our current model of cosmology is deeply flawed

[Anonymous No.5874091]

>>5874086

besides that, GR predictions fit extremely well with other cosmological events. but with that being said, there's quite a few people that are trying to revise or replace GR

[Anonymous No.5874095]

>>5874087
I think this is your problem. The plausible explanations seem to be that there is a first cause, or events extend infinitely far into the past, (or there's some time asymptote at a finite point in the past). It seems equally plausible.

If there was a first time, I see no reason why it can't be a quantum fluctuation. If something is the first time, I see no reason offhand why I should favor one over another.

In short, all possible alternatives are equally implausible.

>>5874091
Yea. Quantum mechanics and/or GR is gonna have to give somehow.

[Anonymous No.5874096]

>>5874087
>why were there quantum flucations to begin with

Are you fucking retarded? It sounds like you known nothing about ths standard model. You don't need a cause of quantum flucations!

[Anonymous No.5874099]

>>5874087
>from what we understand, those things only existed after the universe started.

Nope. You are basically making up nonsense at this point. It is very obvious you have no understand of the standard model, or QFT.

Please prove scientific source that says quantum fluctuations only occurred after the big bang.

Protip: You can't

[Anonymous No.5874100]

>>5874096

you only know that because krauss said it

but you obviously don't know anything about the standard model, because the only reason quantum fluctuations exist is due to the energy of the vacuum. If there was some sort of vacuum energy "before" the big bang, then that would be the start of the universe, by definition, not the big bang. that's a problem

[Anonymous No.5874102]

>>5874100
>>5874099
>>5874096

here you go, asshats

http://phys.org/news/2012-03-physicists-physics-primordial-quantum-fluctuations.html

[Anonymous No.5874106]

>>5874099

#wrekt

[Anonymous No.5874114]

Why do people have trouble accepting the idea (Not saying it's true, but it shouldn't be hard to accept) that things have /always/ been around. What is inherently wrong with the idea that energy was always around?

People always seem to go "Well, what about /before/ the universe?" as if it's absolutely necessary that there must be a before. Firstly, that's nonsense - there's no logical reason that it has to have a beginning (It could just be eternal), and secondly you ignore the fact that time is just part of the universe. So, 'before' the universe is rubbish anyway.

[Anonymous No.5874116]

>>5874100
>can't into chronology of the universe
>can't into standard model

I understand the point you are trying to make, I might draw a similar conclusion if I didn't know much particle physics.

The kind of "fluctuation" that started the universe isn't the same as the "fluctuation" that could exist today. You are totally confusing your symmetries son! Do you know about symmetries?

Originally all forces were one. The notion of modern matter/particles doesn't even exist
before the Grand unification epoch!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Very_early_universe

Krauss (all scientists) are talking about a fluctuation that seeded space-time, and the grand unified force. This is not the same thing as the shitty quantum fluctuation we see today.

The underlying concept is the same though. And there are a shit ton of simulations/tests that have confirmed that a fluctuation of this sort could in fact cause the big bang.

It is possible for some strange ass "nothing" to fluctuate in a certain ways, such that it produces space/time/matter/quantum vacuum.

The quantum vacuum is a result of this initial seeding, produced by a fluctuation of this "primordial nothing state". Get it?

[Anonymous No.5874119]

>>5874102
>>5874106
>confused concepts

Nothing you have posted negates Krauss (most scienists). When they speck of quantum physication that are talking about a different type.

See
>>5874116

Your post falls completely in line with Krauss (most scientists).

[Anonymous No.5874125]

>>5874102
>>5874106
>can't into chronology of the universe
>can't into standard model

I understand the point you are trying to make, I might draw a similar conclusion if I didn't know much particle physics.

The kind of "fluctuation" that started the universe isn't the same as the "fluctuation" that could exist today. You are totally confusing your symmetries son! Do you know about symmetries?

Originally all forces were one. The notion of modern matter/particles doesn't even exist
before the Grand unification epoch!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Very_early_universe

Krauss (all scientists) are talking about a "fluctuation" that seeded space-time, and the grand unified force. This is not the same thing as the shitty "quantum fluctuation" we see today, but the name is often used. Anyone who knows wtf they are talking about, knows there is a difference.

The underlying concept is the same. And there are a shit ton of simulations/tests that have confirmed that a fluctuation of this sort could in fact cause the big bang.

It is possible for some strange ass "nothing" to fluctuate in a certain ways, such that it produces space/time/matter.

The "quantum vacuum" is something that occurred after this "initial seeding". Get it? Your posts only confirm it.

[Anonymous No.5874126]

>>5874119

we'll see

[Anonymous No.5874129]

>>5874125

they're the same

[Anonymous No.5874135]

>>5874129
Nope

[Anonymous No.5874140]

>>5873028
This explains all your questions OP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo