[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 332 KB, 1024x768, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5880453 No.5880453[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Hey /sci/guys. Out of all the natural laws, which do you guys think might be broken by SCIENCE!!!?

Or maybe there have been a few that have been broken already? Anyway, thanks for considering this for a minute.

Pic unrelated

>> No.5880465

wtf?

>> No.5880495

leave

>> No.5880872

FTL travel

>> No.5880883

U wot m8?

>> No.5882015

evolution

>> No.5882019
File: 50 KB, 1054x516, sci.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5882019

modern /sci/ ladies and gents

>> No.5882058

Probably the weak energy condition, since no established theories depend on it.

>> No.5882060

we don't really break any natural laws, we just find work-arounds.

>> No.5882063

>>5880872

I don't think this will be broken, but rather, circumvented.

>> No.5882400

special and general relativity.

The assumptions are too simple to be correct.

>> No.5882574

My butthole

>> No.5884095

>>5882400
What are the assumptions?

>> No.5884113

I don't think you know what a scientfic law is.

>> No.5884118

Your premise is wrong.

>> No.5884852

>>5880872
This is not a natural law.

>> No.5886212

>>5884852
FTL travel would break a natural law and that's what OP is asking.

>> No.5887359

>>5886212
What natural law would it break?

>> No.5888753

>>5887359
The law of conservation of velocity.

>> No.5889564

>>5882058
>since no established theories depend on it.
You forgot information conversation, Lorentz invariance, and locality.

>> No.5890599

>>5889564
Lorentz invariance is not a universal law.

>> No.5891318

>>5890599
Why not?

>> No.5892994

>>5891318
Because it makes assumptions which are not always true.

>> No.5893000

>>5880453
LOVE

>> No.5893816

>>5892994
What assumptions? When are they not true?

>> No.5893828

there are no natural laws

>> No.5894948

>>5893828
Are you saying evolution is not a natural law?

>> No.5895716

>>5893816
For example the assumption that the speed of light is constant. With today's technology we cannot even measure the speed of light.

>> No.5896870

>>5882063
Any ideas on how to circumvent it?

>> No.5896891

>>5896870
BuMpSpAm

>> No.5897561

>>5880872
technically warp drive doesn't technically break any laws, just exploits a loophole

>> No.5897578

Is entropy a law?

>> No.5897584

>>5897561

show me a warp drive that doesn't break any laws

>> No.5897606

Overunity must be possible or the big bang could not have self caused.

It's just a matter of figuring out how to harness that mechanism to do useful work.

>> No.5897609

>>5897606

how do you figure that?

i'm pretty sure you're full of shit

>> No.5897613

>>5897609
>how do you figure that?

If you can get a universe from nothing, you can get energy from nothing. Pretty sure that's exactly what zero point energy is.

>> No.5897620

>>5897613

pretty sure you're wrong

1. nothingness doesn't exist
2. energy didn't come from nothing
3. zero point energy isn't energy from nothing, it's just the lowest possible energy state matter can exist as

>> No.5897632

>>5880453
>implying "natural laws" are just a mental perception

>> No.5897866

>>5897578
It is a word.

>> No.5898822

>>5896870
Wormholes and alcubierre, aka warp, drives are the only two quasi-possible ways to circumvent c. However, both pose extreme problems and may easily prove to be just as unrealistic as time machines.

>> No.5898865

>>5897584
For one, Kranikov tubes never actually involve outrunning your own photons.

>> No.5899857

>>5898822
>may easily prove
It has already been proven.

>> No.5901106

>>5897866
What does it mean?

>> No.5901181

>>5901106
The amount of information needed to completely describe a system.

If you have a beaker full of a liquid A and a liquid B, you can track the positions and number of molecules in each beaker, or you can simplify the system by saything that everything in beaker in beaker A is liquid A and everything in beaker B is quiquid B. If you mix them together you lose the ability to simplify the system.

>> No.5901918

>>5901181
This definition is wrong.

>> No.5902145

The uploaded picture is the only good thing about this thread.

>> No.5903364

>>5901181
How do you quantify information?