If matter cannot be created or destroyed, and only be changed

>>7758291
Matter can be created and destroyed, energy cannot.

>>7758299
where did energy come from then

>>7758302
No one knows.

>>7758302
you know the answer deep inside anon.

>>7758318
Is someone looking into it?

>>7758302
Why do you assume it came from anything?

>>7758364
It can't just appear out of thin air

The Lord created so we can entertain ourselves researching it. TY only and true catholic apostolic God.

>>7758299
Matter is just trapped energy, and I can be created and destroyed at extremely small scales for extremely short periods of time. These virtual particles are created then destroy each other almost simultaneously. Probably.

>>7758374
Why are you assuming it appeared at all.

>>7758291
Why must everything have a source?

>>7758291
it never went anywhere. it was compressed into a tiny, tiny ball. our universe expands and contracts forever. it's just that it takes billions of years.

>>7758424
because we assume the laws of physics are the same all the time.
So if that's not true, why don't we see matter and energy pop from nowhere all the time

>>7758291

Mass energy equivalence

>>7758511
>So if that's not true, why don't we see matter and energy pop from nowhere all the time
Because energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Here's a hint: the negation of "being created" is not "created by nothing", it's "not created at all"

>>7758511
Why must something happen frequently for it to be true?

>>7758302
The total energy of the universe is 0, so it didn't have to come from anywhere. The kinetic energy due to the expantion of space is negative and cancels out all the energy that we see as matter.

>>7758335

There's nothing to "look into". Matter came from a singularity. It was an origination event. Nothing can be known from "before" it. That's what 'singularity' implies.

>>7758354
If you disagre ur a fedora nerd.

File: Question Everything .jpg (60KB, 878x814px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 878x814px

>>7758511
>So if that's not true, why don't we see matter and energy pop from nowhere all the time
Nice try faggot I watch the Science Channel.
What is Hawking radiation?

Everything has a beginning and an end until proven otherwise.

>>7758591

can you elaborate on that some more for someone interested but too lazy to google

how can kinetic energy be negative? If the universe is expanding, and you suddenly stopped it, wouldn't there be heat just like when you stop any other moving object?

>>7758511

we do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgaKaqNeqBE

>>7759844
As a ball rolls down a hill it gains energy due to the gravitational field it is travelling through.

Like the gravitional field due to the mass in the universe, (it is theorized and the predictions of the theory match current CMB data among other things) there exists a scalar inflationary field. As the universe (the entire universe) moved from a high potential energy to a low potential energy of this field, kinetic energy was created which represents all of the energy in the universe.

>>7758291
Does using the rotation of a planet or the pull of something's gravity count as transferred energy?

What if the sun blows up, and the 7 minutes we don't know about it we still use our solar panels?

get it, I'm making fun of /sci/, I'm hilarious

>>7759844
I dont know the subject good enough to give an intuitive explanation of why, I can only tell you that if you calculate the energy in general relativity you get that the total energy of the universe is 0 (the Hamiltonian is 0), the energy has 3 parts:

1) energy of the content of the universe (radiation, matter, dark energy), which is positive
2) 'potential' energy due to the curvature of space (0 for flat universe, positive or negative for curved space)
3) 'kinetic' energy due to the change in the metric tensor, which is negative.

btw this is how dark energy is causing the universe to accelerate its expansion ,since dark energy is proportional to the volume of the universe, the larger the universe gets the more (positive) dark energy it contains, and thus the larger the (negative) kinetic energy must get to make the total energy 0.

Suskinds lectures about cosmology handles this topic if anyone is interested.

>>7758291
Assume initial mass and energy conditions.

There.

>>7759922
>>7760069

Thanks guys.

I'm sure I'm not looking at this from the right perspective. I'm thinking negative energy is something that absorbs or robs something of its energy. But if energy can't be destroyed, my thinking is obviously wrong.

I guess I need to better understand negative energy.

>>7760069


>3) 'kinetic' energy due to the change in the metric tensor, which is negative.

I'll try to read up on what this means. I'm an old guy with an art degree. I'm trying to learn more about how the universe works. I wish I had been interested in this type of thing when I was still in school.