Claims that energy cannot be created or destroyed

Are you retarded? What do you think "infinite" means, moron?

your claim is that infinite universes = infinite energy created. Don't you then imply that you believe finite universe count (for example, one) = a certain finite amount of energy is created?

And to cover my bases - if that is not what youre claiming - then how can 1 universe create no energy, 2 universes create no energy, etc but somehow, as you increase to infinity, they do start to create energy?

Oh no yeah I see you, you're right. My bad.

The sum of the total amount of energy in the universe is zero

The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is a very serious contender as a theory against the Copenhagen school. Stop being an idiot.

lmao, "very serious contender" yes yes of course buddy, it is all very very serious

Newton also thought that the perfect economic system is the capitalism and that you could turn lead into gold.
Modern science is also a joke.

this.

>Yea Forums criticizing modern science

Attached: 1568531397062.png (645x729, 77K)

I'm not a scientist or knowledgeable about physics. Therefor I'll refrain to debate anything in this thread.

Multiverse theory is impossible to confirm. It's funny that a lot scientists laugh at people believing in god, but come up with something as stupid as the Multiverse theory.

>a pop science youtube video
science doesn't work by 1 dead scientist claiming his scribbles predict an infinite multiverse.

the only way to verify anything these physicists come up with is empirical evidence.

1st law of thermodynamics is an observable phenomenon, multiverse isn't.

>modern science claims that there is an infinite number of universes

No it doesn't.

Infinite universes is a gross violation of Occam's Razor, it is a fantasy,not sciebtui

>claims that energy cannot be created or destroyed
Newton didn't even work with the concepts to make this statement. The concept of energy as we understand is traceable in the writings of Leibniz and the following school in the 18th century.
Even then energy is defined in such a way that it is an invariant of motion.
>>modern science claims that there is an infinite number of universes
It certainly doesn't. This is some bizarre 'interpretation' that is outside the scope of empirical research or a priori arguments.
>>this implies an infinite amount of energy creation
No.

Embarrassing post desu.

This. Many-worlds theory is consistent with QM, but not empirically testable. It’s just one popular interpretation of QM.

>t. Aristotle
Actual infinite is what everyone understands by infinite since Cantor if not Duns Scot. the possibility of adding to something doesn't make it infinite. In fact, it is almost the opposite. Something is infinite if it is equal with itself and its addition.

Maybe the answer is God

Answers need to explain something, God is a complete non-explanation

This guy is correct. If you want to use correct terminology, it shouldn't be called a theory, because there's no empirical evidence supporting it. It shouldn't even be called a hypothesis, because that implies it's testable in the first place. For example, there are about a dozen different and mutually incompatible versions of string "theory." And, because they cannot be proven or disproved, are all equally worthless.
This is thought to be true.
Experiments in the 70s have given Bell's Inequality experimental verification. Copenhagen is almost universally accepted, with the agnostic/realist positions at a far second. Many-worlds is fringe at best.
based

>when the literature board is more knowledgeable on science than the science board

Attached: 1562334359123.png (834x1079, 937K)

>empirical evidence.
>modern science
lmfao, you had hawking claiming he could work in 11 dimensions. it's fucking astrology

>Newton also thought that the perfect economic system is the capitalism and that you could turn lead into gold.
based

>Newton also thought that the perfect economic system is the capitalism
Is it not?

>Science ended with Newton
good post

What a breathtakingly fallacious argument. If there are infinite universes the law of conservation is preserved for each universe, which is self-contained and isolated from the rest.

indeed i said "working hypothesis" not "hypothesis".
also nobody considered what i said about the isolated system (you should since im a stem student). the law of conservation states that energy isn't created or destroyed. not in a multiverse hypothesis though, but just in this universe, which we deem an isolated system. this is the whole point.

>modern "science" criticizing anything
lmfao

>energy cannot be created
brain dead kid can't be motivated to do anything
>energy cannot be destroyed
hyperactive kid can't be turned off

>modern science claims that there is an infinite number of universes
wat

Idk why you would post Newton when he made precisely none of those claims. He stated conservation of momentum. Leibniz stated conservation of vis viva which was close but didn't include potential energy. The principle of conservation of energy was solidified with thermodynamics.

No it doesn't brainboy

If there had always been an infinite amount of energy, then there is no need for creation.

There is the hypothesis that the universe has 0 total energy. Matter is the positive and gravity is the negative. More n matter = more n gravity so the total is always 0, and the total energy is always the same.

Actually, there is potential energy all around us being created as positrons and electrons. These almost always cancel each other out and never amount to anything, let's say, "real" (we call them virtual particles). If one of the particles in a pair falls into a black hole but the other escapes, then you get a positive energy balance since the negative of the surviving particle is gone. This is called Hawking radiation and will be the last source of energy remaining in the final eons of the universe.

>the scientific community
lmao

...

science died with newton, dont even bother

>If there had always been an infinite amount of energy, then there is no need for creation.
That's what Hawking was theorizing at the end of his life. He speculated that there may not have actually been a beginning to the universe.

>modern science claims that there is an infinite number of universes
It doesn't. At least anyone who isn't a retard doesn't.
>Science ended with Newton
Based

well he was a retard who claimed to know about 11 dimensions who gives a shit what he believed

Except the theory is probably correct. Beginnings are an invention of the modern human mind, and since it makes no sense for there to be a region "outside" of the universe, the universe's energy is "isolated" and never created or destroyed.

>Except the theory is probably correct. Beginnings are an invention of the modern human mind, and since it makes no sense for there to be a region "outside" of the universe, the universe's energy is "isolated" and never created or destroyed.
Yes, this platitude was already old and decrepit when the Greeks were saying it thousands of years ago. The truth is that we'll never know or even come close to knowing anything about the universe that is worth knowing.

Shut the fuck up Socrates

yes. he predicted you can turn lead into gold with capitalist-backed nuclear transmutation

Name one thing science has ever been right about.

That's not a multiverse. That's a single universal wavefunction in which no unique outcomes to experiments exist. It's like a tree with many branches.

A multiverse would also be an isolated system.

You can have work with zero energy, as long as there isn't max entropy, and you allow for negative energy.

Even if some universes or the multiverse are non zero energy, if they always existed they wouldn't have to be created.

cope

A traffic jam when you're already late
A "no smoking" sign on your cigarette break
It's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife
It's meeting the man of my dreams
And then meeting his beautiful wife
And isn't it ironic, don't you think?
A little too ironic, and yeah I really do think

You seem very well, things look peaceful
I'm not quite as well, I thought you should know
Did you forget about me, Mr. Duplicity?
I hate to bug you in the middle of dinner
It was a slap in the face
How quickly I was replaced
And are you thinking of me when you fuck her?

Attached: tmagArticle.jpg (592x743, 102K)

>this implies an infinite amount of energy creation
Wrong. Remove the last word.

ahhhhhhhhh why cant someone just solve the universe FUCK this shit hurts my brainlet brain

Multiverse theory isn't generally accepted.

These scientists don't know anything. It's just speculation based on their autism projects. They don't know anything about epistemology or metaphysics yet make wild claims about infinities and creation from nothing.

i fucking hate this haircut type. even full shave is better

>Modern science is also a joke.
It certainly is.
Modern science is also a joke.

meant to post this youtube.com/watch?v=b0e-omnsukM

People in 18th-19th century always thought "the arrow of time", irreversibility of cosmos is impossible to confirm by science. Even the time when Einstein's alive held that position. Right now almost every scientist think Science made through this - and they will just say second law and CPT with no philosophical depth
>you want to use correct terminology - it shouldn't be called a theory
STEM use their terminology like philosophers using their terms like "metaphysical" or "understanding".
Everybody abuse the term, and only time when they feel they need to correct the abuse of terms is only when the need being really necessary. They didn't do it in this situation because they don't know how necessary this is

who claims there are infinite universes? if you mean everett's thing that was never "modern science" but an interpretation of QM which is on the fringes of physics and philosophy of physics.

This is INSANE you FOOL

it's funny that it took science thousands of years to get to "cant know nuffin"

How does it logically follow that if there is infinite energy available that creation is unnecessary?

Just because 'infinite energy' exists doesn't mean we possess the tools to release it.

Didn't for example the 'combustible engine' allow for the transmutation of greater amounts of released energy --> Allowing us 'humans' to use our energy towards other domains since transport was less necessary.

The same could be said for the washing machine. A new technology that uses energy in new and different ways that allows humans to realign their energy to new things that used to go into countless hours of washing clothes.

This process is endless? I don't see the contradiction. There exists infinite energy.

That does not automatically entail that we can harvest it.

The same idea about Moore's law. Being able to double processing speed IE make more efficient use of 'energy'?

Not a stem - but it would seem logical.

Ladies and gentlemen, the smartest board on Yea Forums.

>modern science claims that there is an infinite number of universes
pure phantasy

Attached: methode_times_prod_web_bin_89dddd54-081b-11e7-bb41-9f8b57468927.jpg (685x385, 46K)

not samefag but tbf copenhagen is bullshit as well.

Copenhagen taken to its logical conclusion gives you the solipsism of Wigner's friend. Many-worlds is theoretically austere in that it is simply an ontology of orthodox quantum mechanics without any superfluous collapse postulate. It is the world according to the deterministic evolution of schrodinger's equation without any additional assumptions. So yes, I do not see why one shouldn't take it seriously. It is not in any real sense a "multi"verse, just a universal wavefunction evolving over time.

I swear Yea Forums are dumbest people you people argue about things human invented/discovered but you dont even read theories you just say 80% of it and think you have something better

true, but we're still here for some reason