Potential problem with the quantum "zero net energy" explanation for the existence of the universe

1. 2017-10-29 at 4:01 AM UTC

   #21
   

   Sophie Pedophile Tech Support

   Originally posted by benny vader your problem is believing in the inabilities of energies to be generated out of nothing.
   
   they didnt becos the universe contained matters, which can be used to generate energies.
   
   whats wrong with this ???

   
   It violates the laws of thermodynamics.
2. 2017-10-29 at 4:05 AM UTC

   #22
   

   -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
   The real scary part is what's outside the programmed matrix.
3. 2017-10-29 at 4:06 AM UTC

   #23
   

   benny vader YELLOW GHOST

   Originally posted by Sophie It violates the laws of thermodynamics.

   
   which one ??? the one i remember is the one about that which flows from high to low.
4. 2017-10-29 at 4:07 AM UTC

   #24
   

   Sophie Pedophile Tech Support

   Originally posted by benny vader which one ??? the one i remember is the one about that which flows from high to low.

   
   The one that says you need to put energy in to get energy out.
5. 2017-10-29 at 4:10 AM UTC

   #25
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole

   Originally posted by benny vader your problem is believing in the inabilities of energies to be generated out of nothing.
   
   they didnt becos the universe contained matters, which can be used to generate energies.
   
   whats wrong with this ???

   
   I'm not taking the bait, you fucktard
6. 2017-10-29 at 4:12 AM UTC

   #26
   

   -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
   The infinity of creation goes both ways, outward and inward. The cosmos in infinite, as the microcosmos is also infinite.
7. 2017-10-29 at 4:24 AM UTC

   #27
   

   benny vader YELLOW GHOST

   Originally posted by Sophie The one that says you need to put energy in to get energy out.

   idk.
   
   i thot that one was superseded when e=mc^2 came out.
8. 2017-10-29 at 4:52 AM UTC

   #28
   

   mmQ Lisa Turtle

   Originally posted by -SpectraL The infinity of creation goes both ways, outward and inward. The cosmos in infinite, as the microcosmos is also infinite.

   
   It speaks volumes that almost everything in the cosmos is spherical.
9. 2017-10-29 at 4:54 AM UTC

   #29
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole

   Originally posted by mmQ It speaks volumes that almost everything in the cosmos is spherical.

   
   Um, not really
10. 2017-10-29 at 4:55 AM UTC

    #30
    

    mmQ Lisa Turtle

    Originally posted by Captain Falcon Um, not really

    
    Not really what
11. 2017-10-29 at 5:36 AM UTC

    #31
    

    -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    I think is more like linear. No beginning and no end. The beta and the Omega.
12. 2017-10-29 at 5:42 AM UTC

    #32
    

    Sophie Pedophile Tech Support

    Originally posted by mmQ It speaks volumes that almost everything in the cosmos is spherical.

    
    Planets and stars are spherical, that's about it, maybe some particles but some particles can be waves too. Also as far as we can tell the Universe is flat ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
13. 2017-10-29 at 2:44 PM UTC

    #33
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole

    Originally posted by mmQ Not really what

    
    If the idea is that planets and rings and shit are spherical and subatomic shit is spherical therefore it's turtles all the way down, then you have the wrong idea.
    
    Planets, stars etc are roughly spherical because they are big enough to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium, and the fact that it's spherical is because of a coincidence with the fact that the sphere is the default shape of a force etc that is uniform in all directions, in this case it is gravity. Theres no reason to believe there is any "continuity", neither "upwards" on the scale, nor "downwards".
    
    Essentially the only reason this idea exists is because the Bohr atomic model looks kinda like the solar system, and the Bohr model is outdated and only used for teaching purposes.
    
    Post last edited by Captain Falcon at 2017-10-29T14:46:36.941577+00:00
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!

    • Sophie
14. 2017-10-29 at 3:07 PM UTC

    #34
    

    Sophie Pedophile Tech Support

    Originally posted by Captain Falcon If the idea is that planets and rings and shit are spherical and subatomic shit is spherical therefore it's turtles all the way down, then you have the wrong idea.
    
    Planets, stars etc are roughly spherical because they are big enough to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium, and the fact that it's spherical is because of a coincidence with the fact that the sphere is the default shape of a force etc that is uniform in all directions, in this case it is gravity. Theres no reason to believe there is any "continuity", neither "upwards" on the scale, nor "downwards".
    
    Essentially the only reason this idea exists is because the Bohr atomic model looks kinda like the solar system, and the Bohr model is outdated and only used for teaching purposes.
    
    Post last edited by Captain Falcon at 2017-10-29T14:46:36.941577+00:00

    
    Thanked for hydrostatic equilibrium. Wanted to bring it up but decided to keep it simple.
15. 2021-02-02 at 12:24 PM UTC

    #35
    

    Joseph R. Biden Jr, 46th President of the United States of America African Astronaut
    THE ANSWER:
    
    Conservation laws are a consequence of symmetries in equations. Energy conservation is a consequence of time invariance symmetries. However the universe as a whole is not a time symmetric invariant system (as a result of dark energy, the accelerated expansion of the universe).
    
    Therefore energy is not conserved.
    
    For example a photon flying through space will be redshifted to a lower frequency. In QM, frequency is directly proportional to the energy of a particle such as a photon
    
    So energy is lost and not conserved.