Comment

Yes, but we don’t have proof that universe can’t generate new matter.

True… we also don’t have proof there isn’t a tea pot orbiting our Sun since it’s creation, either.

However, there’s also a complete lack of evidence of it.

You cannot prove a negative. The evidence says no new matter can be created. No evidence that new matter gets created. Therefore, we work on the model of no new matter creation.

source

Sort:hotnew top

FishFace@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
On these scales, the accuracy of our observations should reduce our confidence though. It doesn’t make sense to confidently say that, in 200 trillion years there will be no stars, because our observations of the rate of new matter creation (approximately zero) have a margin of error which allows for there to still be some

source
- ubergeek@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  Until evidence shows otherwise, new matter being created doesnt fit our observations.
  
  Go prove that wrong! Win yourself a Nobel prize in physics! That’s what science is about!
  
  source
  - SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    I do also want to point out that stuff like “The conservation of energy” law, in other words, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, does not hold for our universe with our current models. An expanding universe violates the time-translation symmetry
    
    This is our current models. This is what our current physics says. And we know it’s incomplete.
    
    When it comes to scientific predictions, you always, always, need the caveat, “under our current model of”.
    
    source
    ubergeek@lemmy.today ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Space itself expanding doesnt, however…
    
    source
  - FishFace@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    New matter being created with extremely low probability fits perfectly with our observations.
    
    source
    ubergeek@lemmy.today ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    A teapot created with out solar system orbiting the sun fits our models, with an extremely low probability.
    
    However, we dont work on that assumption being true.
    
    source
SorryQuick@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
But in this case, this “theory” has a precedent. This energy and matter we have now must have come from somewhere. Whatever your personal belief on the matter is, what’s to say that event can’t happen again? If a god created the universe, then surely he can pump some more into it.

source
- ubergeek@lemmy.today ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  Matter and energy can be converted. So, its possible it was never created, it just always was.
  
  source
  - SorryQuick@lemmy.ca ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    That’s something I’ll never be able to understand. Something having no beginning. Just like I’ll never be able to understand a moment before the big bang, or at the moment of the singularity, where time did could not exist. If there’s no time, how can anything, like the big bang, happen? Unfortunately the singularity is something we know nothing about whatsoever, and probably will never know.
    
    source
tempest@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
So if all the existing matter came from the big Bang, is it possible to condense it all back into one place?

source
- pticrix@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  pretty sure that is the big crunch hypothesis
  
  source
- ubergeek@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  Sure! Big crunch is a possibility! Crunch or heat death, all matters on how much matter is in the universe.
  
  source
- Oppopity@lemmygrad.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  Google “big crunch hypothesis”
  
  source