/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5886591]

The idea of an infinite universe is incompatible with conservation of energy. Discuss.

[Anonymous No.5886599]

There is nothing to discuss until you tell us exactly why that would be the case.

[Anonymous No.5886614]

The universe is only as infinite as the length of a circle's edge.

/thread

[Anonymous No.5886631]

>>5886614
The universe is only as infinite as the scope of my edginess.

[Anonymous No.5886638]

You would have known this >>5886599 if you weren't a total fucking /x/faggot

[Anonymous No.5886651]

>>5886631
pffff, my suit is black and my hat once belonged to my great grandfather

[Anonymous No.5886653]

Energy isn't conserved globally in GR.

[Anonymous No.5886673]

>>5886653
what the fuck am I reading

If that's true, and GR predicts an universe where energy is only locally conserved, then it also predicts a universe where the equivalence principle upon which it is founded is only locally conserved, which throws the whole model into doubt. Particularly, it would imply that the FLWR Model is an inappropriate use of the field equations. That is to say, that the entire Lambda-CDM model blows up the Einstein field equations. Cosmology is in deeper trouble than I thought,

[Anonymous No.5886678]

>>5886653
http://blog.vixra.org/2010/08/06/energy-is-conserved/

[Anonymous No.5886690]

>>5886673
Why are you losing your shit over a 6 word sentence on 4chan

The guy you replied to probably doesn't really know what he's talking about. That said, neither do you.

[Anonymous No.5886692]

>>5886651
was your grandfather really edgy?

[Anonymous No.5886701]

>>5886690
Well then the conjecture is still on the table. In a universe where energy is globally conserved, that means there must be a large but finite amount of stuff in the universe, becasue conservation of energy implies that there is a finite amount of stuff that just being moved around or converted into different forms. If the universe were infinite, that would imply matter creation and conservation of energy wouldn't work the way it appears to, if at all.

[Anonymous No.5886706]

>>5886701
>conservation of energy implies that there is a finite amount of stuff that just being moved around or converted into different forms.
Why?

[Anonymous No.5886723]

>>5886706
Let's say I have a gallon of water. I add energy to the water in the form of photons. If energy weren't conserved, the water would deal with this increase in local energy by simply creating more water out of no where to provide more thermal capacity. Or more accurately, there would be nothing stopping that from happening. However, if energy /is/ conserved, then the water has to take on a different arrangement in order to accept the increase in energy, by changing into steam, and then eventfully into plasma. This is becasue no new water can be created about of nowhere. So the fact that energy is conserved implies that there is a finite universe, becasue if the universe were infinite, there would be an infinite potential in which to spontaneously fill with as much new substances is necessary to account for a shift in energy.

[Anonymous No.5886727]

>>5886723
That example shows that energy is sometimes conserved, but how do we know that there isn't some process by which conservation of energy is broken?

[Anonymous No.5886728]

>>5886706
Let's say I have a gallon of water. I add energy to the water in the form of photons. If energy weren't conserved, the water would deal with this increase in local energy by simply creating more water out of no where to provide more thermal capacity. Or more accurately, there would be nothing stopping that from happening. However, if energy /is/ conserved, then the water has to take on a different arrangement in order to accept the increase in energy, by changing into steam, and then eventually into plasma. This is becasue no new water can be created out of nowhere. So the fact that energy is conserved implies that there is a finite universe, becasue if the universe were infinite, there would be an infinite potential in which to spontaneously fill with as much new substance as necessary to account for a shift in energy.

[Anonymous No.5886732]

>>5886723
>So the fact that energy is conserved implies that there is a finite universe, becasue if the universe were infinite, there would be an infinite potential in which to spontaneously fill with as much new substances is necessary to account for a shift in energy.
That sounds like a non sequitur to me. How does the matter imply the former? My half-empty water glass has SUFFICIENT potential for spawning new water when photons enter to heat it, yet this does not happen. Why would that be any different for an infinite space?

[Anonymous No.5886735]

>>5886728
>So the fact that energy is conserved implies that there is a finite universe, becasue if the universe were infinite, there would be an infinite potential in which to spontaneously fill with as much new substances is necessary to account for a shift in energy.
That sounds like a non sequitur to me. How does the latter imply the former? My half-empty water glass has SUFFICIENT potential for spawning new water when photons enter to heat it, yet this does not happen. Why would that be any different for an infinite space?

[Anonymous No.5886738]

>>5886727
Because first of all, there's no evidence for conservation of energy being broken. Second, a universe where the laws of physics are different in different parts of it doesn't make sense. Two sets of matter that obey two sets of rules can't interact with one another. So if it were the case that there are places where the laws are different from how there appear to be locally, those places wouldn't even appear to exist from our perspective.

[Anonymous No.5886743]

>>5886735
>My half-empty water glass has SUFFICIENT potential for spawning new water when photons enter to heat it

No it doesn't. Your half empty water glass has the potential for more water to be moved into it from some other part of the system. It doesn't have the potential to spawn new water.

[Anonymous No.5886753]

>>5886743
And why do you expect that to be different for an infinite universe?

[Anonymous No.5886770]

>>5886753
Because the potential size of the universe is bounded by the amount of stuff in it. An infinite universe would contain infinite stuff. And since and infinite universe has infinite potential, that means that new stuff would be created. Which would violate conservation of energy. Conservation of energy is a result of there being a limited amount of stuff in the universe, and a limited amount of stuff implies a limited size.

[Anonymous No.5886775]

Assume the universe is infinite and contains an infinite amount of energy.
∞ + 1 = ∞
Therefore, in an infinite universe, creating energy out of nowhere does not violate conservation of energy.

[Anonymous No.5886780]

>>5886770
>Because the potential size of the universe is bounded by the amount of stuff in it.
Can you elaborate on that?
>And since and infinite universe has infinite potential,
What does that mean?
>that means that new stuff would be created.
Why?
Also, where did you find this whole "potential" concept anyway?

[Anonymous No.5886786]

>>5886775
Good troll, 10/10

However, in that example, inf+1 = inf would still imply that things matter is able to be created out of nowhere and it would still obey conversation laws. But, we do not see experimentally that matter is spontaneously created out of nowhere as a reaction to the transfer of energy.

[Anonymous No.5886788]

Assuming that the energy isn't infinity, will come a hour when the energy will be badly share between the space, since the universe keep in expansion, then will have lacks of energy in some points. how can a place stay without "pure energy" ?

[Anonymous No.5886792]

Why can't the universe be infinite in size, yet contain a limited amount of energy?

[Anonymous No.5886810]

>>5886780
>Can you elaborate on that?
The universe is defined by everything that exists, that is, it's total energy. There is nothing else.

>What does that mean?
As a consequence of the universe being defined only by it's total energy, an infinite universe would be defined by that fact that it contains infinite energy. An infinite amount of energy would constitute and infinite potential.

By potential I mean physical energy potentials; energy fields. An infinite universe would have no bounds on the size of the total energy field, and so there would be nothing to stop energy from just popping into existence out of nowhere as needed. In fact, an infinite universe logically demands that energy is constantly created, becasue the field is constantly increasing in size - infinitely so.

[Anonymous No.5886814]

>>5886792
That could be the case if all the energy was located in a single place surrounded by infinite nothingness (for example). I don't think that's what we observe, though.

[Anonymous No.5886817]

>>5886591
>OP does not have a very good understanding of physics

>OP does not have a very good understanding of energy

>OP does not have a very good understanding of the concept of infinity

Sorry OP, everything you say is bullshit. Learn more, speak less.

\thread

[Anonymous No.5886822]

>>5886591
Imagine some 3D space with only a pebble flying by. Here's an infinite universe with finite energy.

[Anonymous No.5886823]

>>5886678
>vixra

[Anonymous No.5886830]

>>5886814
Are you fucking stupid?

[Anonymous No.5886831]

>>5886792
see

>>5886810

The size of the universe is defined only by what is in it. If there is a large amount of space in which the matter of the universe could move into, that empty space represents "stuff." Empty space has energy, and constitutes a "something." Imagine the universe as a big balloon. in the center is a bunch of dust particles. the dust particles are only in the center, but they could move around and spread out. They can move all the way to the edge of the balloon, but not bast the balloon walls. the dust, /and the void around the dust/ (which is actaully helium, or whatever the balloon is filled with) constitute the universe. An infinite universe would mean that the balloon is constantly being filled with more helium. And since there is nothing outside the balloon to fill it, that would mean the helium must be spontaneously created from inside the balloon. The balloon itself would not even be "expanding into" anything; the balloon and everything inside it is all there is. So the size of the universe is bounded by it's total energy.

[Anonymous No.5886832]

>>5886830
Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.5886840]

>>5886832
Do you have a low intelligence quotient?

[Anonymous No.5886843]

>>5886822
No. The space where the pebble is flying around in constitutes a something. An infinite amount of space for the pebble to fly in constitutes an infinite amount of energy. And as we already discussed, an infinite amount of energy implies that there is no /need/ for conservation of energy, and so conservation of energy wouldn't be observed.

[Anonymous No.5886842]

>>5886591
>>5886814
Plz fuck off with this retarded baby nonsense.

How does a finite section of a number line (0,1) contain an infinite amount of numbers? Is your mind fucking blown yet?

\thread

[Anonymous No.5886845]

>>5886831
Why does a finite section of a number line contain an infinite amount of numbers?

[Anonymous No.5886846]

>>5886842
an finite section of a number line does NOT contain an infinite amount of numbers. Go back to math class.

[Anonymous No.5886848]

>>5886843
>An infinite amount of space for the pebble to fly in constitutes an infinite amount of energy.

[Anonymous No.5886850]

>>5886840
Seriously, are you an autistic manchild?

[Anonymous No.5886853]

>>5886846
>an finite section of a number line does NOT contain an infinite amount of numbers

Are you trolling or just stupid?

[Anonymous No.5886855]

>>5886846
>can't into basic numbers

How old are you?

[Anonymous No.5886857]

>>5886842
Worst analogy of the year.

[Anonymous No.5886864]

>>5886692
he was a german ss soldier

[Anonymous No.5886865]

>>5886846
>>5886591

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum

"Between any two real numbers a < b, no matter how close they are to each other, there are always infinitely many other real numbers"

Did you even go to grade school OP?

[Anonymous No.5886878]

>>5886865

[Anonymous No.5886879]

>>5886857
How?

OPs problem is that he doesn't understand basic math, he assumes a "finite object" cannot contain "infinite objects". It is a mistake only a very young child or religious retard makes.

[Anonymous No.5886889]

>>5886878
>I wanna talk about physics
>but refuse to use math or actual physics

/x/------------------------------------>

[Anonymous No.5886892]

>>5886865
Thanks

\thread

[sage No.5886893]

>>5886878
>A human construct
>Flawed because it has human intervention
that pic, what the fuck?

[sage No.5886902]

>>5886893
It is an obvious troll. No one is that retarded. He might as well have denied the existence of "0", or proclaimed the "earth was flat". Pretty sure OP was a troll too.

[Anonymous No.5886919]

>>5886902
>No one is that retarded
Clearly you have forgotten what time of year it is.

[Anonymous No.5886964]

>>5886775
>>5886786

pls explain troll pic

[Anonymous No.5886993]

so let me get this straight: any absolutely contained amount of energy cannot be converted into a different amount of energy. right? now, an infinite universe would have infinite energy, but that's not to say that one piece of this energy can be turned into two.

glad I could contribute for once.

[Anonymous No.5886994]

>>5886775
sorry, can't infinite plus 1.

[Anonymous No.5887015]

is this infinite universe unlimited matter and volume or is it that matter can be broken up infinitely? there's a difference/

[Anonymous No.5887026]

>>5886865

does this apply to integers and rational numbers?

I don't think it does

[Anonymous No.5887031]

>>5886591
The idea of infinity is incompatible with linearity and time causality.

And yet... infinity most definitely is a valid, extremely possible idea. Furthermore, linearity and time causality are self-evident. Just because an idea clashes with a truism does not necessarily mean the idea itself is false, it's just as likely that there's a third factor you aren't privy to.

[Anonymous No.5887073]

>The idea of an infinite universe is incompatible with conservation of energy. Discuss.
Energy is not conserved in the universe. Dark energy comes to mind here.

[Anonymous No.5887084]

>>5887026
Yes, it applies to all Real numbers.
a and b can be any real numbers.

[Anonymous No.5887091]

>>5887031
>>5887073
All your further considerations are irrelvant. OP's entire premise, summarized in >>5886879, was proven wrong by Cantor over 140 FUCKING YEARS AGO!

JesuS CHIRST CHILDREN! GO READ SOME FUCKING BOOKS!!

>>5886865

[Anonymous No.5887119]

>>5886879

How can it? Assuming the object is physical and exists within the universe rather than abstract numbers. There's a minimum size that an object must be to exist. A box in my hand has a finite volume. Eventually, I would fill that box with a finite number of those objects.

[Anonymous No.5887284]

>>5886993
In an infinite universe, there is nothing to prevent those multiple pieces from simply being clones of the original pieces, thus multiplying the total energy of the universe from infinity to infinity*n where n is the new number of energy quanta. Obviously, our universe doesn't work that way, so there must be a factor that forces conservation of energy. The main obvious thing that would cause conservation of energy is if there were only a limited about of energy to go around. Because of this, if energy is conserved /anywhere/ in the universe, that strongly implies that it is conserved /everywhere/ in the universe, becasue it strongly implies that the universe is finite.

>>5887073
Dark energy is an unsatisfying hypothesis precisely /becasue/ it implies a violation of conservation of energy. This is part of the reason it's called the "dark energy problem"

>>5887119
This. Just because math allows for a concept doesn't mean that concept physically exists. There is no reason to assume that cantor's infinite series are a physically realized mathematical concept. Over 100 years of experiment in the field of QM has shown, in fact, that the universe is not infinitely divisible. So for all intents and purposes, two points in space-time do not have an infinite number of smaller points in between them.

[Anonymous No.5887289]

ITT: people assert that mathematical continuum infinities are an accurate description of the physical universe without providing evidence for it

[Anonymous No.5887299]

>>5886865
Non-sequitur. Just becasue there are an infinite amount of possible numbers doesn't mean the universe is infinitely large.

[Anonymous No.5888673]

Conservation of energy doesn't apply anymore on quantum level.

[Anonymous No.5889528]

>>5888673
Is this what Tesla discovered?