[ a / cm / ic / sci / tg / v / vg / vip / y ] [ index / top / statistics / report bug ]

/sci/ - Science & Math

View Post

File: 59KiB, 960x720, sling.jpg [View Same] [Google] [iqdb] [SauceNAO]
11128273 No.11128273 [Reply] [Original]

Considering the "law" of conservation of energy, is all the energy in the entire universe the exact same as it were at the big bang billions of years ago? How could this be confirmed?

If it isn't; where does the energy go?

>> No.11128282


>> No.11128287
Quoted By: >>11128291

>is all the energy in the entire universe the exact same as it were at the big bang billions of years ago?
>How could this be confirmed?
We've never measured energy not being conserved, and we've done LOTS of measurements.

>> No.11128291
Quoted By: >>11128299 >>11128307

How much energy is it?

>> No.11128293
Quoted By: >>11128300 >>11128850

Such statements about how cosmological scale "reality" corresponds to cosmological models are essentially just guesswork.

Energy conservation in particular is an artifact of theory-selection of humans: Those theories which have too high a complexity to be of any use (even if they in principle would describe nature better in terms of predictions in experiments) can't and won't be studied by human like creatures - we can't do much with them, or compute stuff from them. Theories that enable one to model things and can also be explicitly solved or at least simulated are relatively simple - and conservation laws are such a parameter reducing aspect of a mathematical framework. We know and use theories with energy conversations because those are the sort of theories that we can do something with and get somewhere. It doesn't reflect on nature, it reflects on us.

>> No.11128299

A lot.

>> No.11128300

For example, consider the theory of particles, where each particle fulfills similar but essentially its own unique rules. This may well "be the case" but entirely useless for humans, since we can't use a model with that many parameters. In our theory search and use, such hyper-complex theories are ruled out apriori, by necessity. We naturally only find working theories where all the things in all the space and at all times follow some rules that can be expressed in terms that we can approach and use in some sensible way.

>> No.11128307

Very roughly 10^70 joules, which is a lot.

>> No.11128335

This can't be. Either absolute hot would hit or some breakage of the speed of light.

Or i guess... it depends? How large is the origin point of the big bang?

>> No.11128383


Energy is not conserve at astronomical scale. Energy can be lost due photons travelking through expanding space or dark energy creation. Conservation of enery only applies to systems that are time symmetric, the universe as whole is not.

>> No.11128402
Quoted By: >>11128412

>If it isn't; where does the energy go?
watch this video Lil peep's expanation on the conservation of energy is 10/10 and is only 20 seconds

>> No.11128412

Finally, I find a clairvoyant source of information which has granted me with a perspective undeniable from ultimate truth.

>> No.11128417
Quoted By: >>11128758


The Law of Conservation of Energy arises because of symmetry, in particular, time translational symmetry. Energy is conserved if the physics of a system (for example the nature of a force field), stays the same over time. For every symmetry in our universe, there's a conserved quantity. Law of conservation of Momentum is due spatial translation symmetry. Since dark energy always increases, energy is not conserved.

>> No.11128608
File: 456KiB, 641x648, The Universe.png [View Same] [Google] [iqdb] [SauceNAO]

>big bang

>> No.11128747

Despite what these pseuds are telling you, energy is not conserved in an expanding universe.

>> No.11128758

Great. Now is there time translational symmetry in an expanding universe? Now you see why the energy need not be conserved

>> No.11128850

it's not just blind complexity, it has to also be intuitive leaps and contextualization that a human mind just isn't equipped to handle

the greatest conceit of science is the faith that we can learn anything given sufficient data and effort

but why would that be the case, when our brains and minds are demonstrably imperfect, limited, and severely biased

>> No.11130208
Quoted By: >>11130211

You got the law wrong. Energy is constant in the multiverse, but not necessarily in an universe. For example, our universe could borrow energy from universes adjacent to ours.

>> No.11130211
Quoted By: >>11130213

why do you even bother to post?

>> No.11130213
Quoted By: >>11130217

People need to know the truth.

>> No.11130217

I'm curious why you think what you said is the truth. Did it just seem right to you and you decided it must be the truth?

>> No.11130236
Quoted By: >>11130276

Free will exists, so no.

>> No.11130276

'free', 'will', 'existes'; I don't know what you mean by any of these words.

Theme [ FoolFuuka - Default / FoolFuuka - Midnight / Fuuka / Yotsubatwo - Yotsuba / Yotsubatwo - Yotsuba B ]