I asked a question (link-deleted question so only visible to 10k rep users) about an hour ago. It was downvoted to -3 so I deleted it. I explained how energy is generated in my fictional world and ask "what physics will be affected". Is this kind of question considered as bad question in this SE? Thanks.

My original post:

I asked this question yesterday: If Earth mass is doubled, what is the change of earth's orbit

The answer stated that:

When you break conservation of energy on this sort of scale, a lot of physics goes out the window. We also need to clarify some things about the mass-energy equivalence and what we mean when we say "mass".

So I want to ask about my energy generation mechanism in a new post. I would like to know what physics will be affected in my framework.

These are my ideas:

  1. Energy is conserved if the system is closed.

    A ball is moving on a fiction-less surface, its kinetic and potential energy will not change if there is no force applied. You can put your finger in front of the ball and make it stop, this is the interference outside the system.

    So, my universe is not closed system, energy can go in the universe.

  2. Noether's theorem

    I have read stuffs about Noether's theorem. The conservation law is very strong according to the theorem, not only the total amount of energy in the universe is conserved, the amount of energy in every point in the space is also conserved. The conserved quantity is like a "current", the incoming energy and outgoing energy in every point should be the same. I use Bernoulli's principle to help me to understand this concept.

I use two ways to suspend the Noether's theorem.

  1. Banach-Tarski Paradox

    The Banach–Tarski paradox is a theorem in set-theoretic geometry, which states the following: Given a solid ball in 3‑dimensional space, there exists a decomposition of the ball into a finite number of disjoint subsets, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the original ball.

    However, we cannot do this in real world because we cannot break the ball into non-measurable sets. I use the Radical Platonism view in my framework, so math is an external reality. But I don't want to redefine "what is matter". I just use the Banach-Tarski Paradox to "prove" that there is something can be broken into non-measurable sets in my fictional world. (OK, this is the Unobtainium trope.)

  2. Mind is the first cause

    Mind is the ultimate existence, it created the universe. Human's mind is part of the world's mind, so everybody also have this "ability of first cause". (To be simple: everybody is god.) People can use math to affect the reality. (math=magic trope) People can create new space, then copy the Unobtainium in the new space. For example, people create $1 cm^3$ new space and create the Unobtainium in the new $1 cm^3$ space. It is just like what happened in the creation of the universe. That $1 cm^3$ was not exist, it is not invariant under translation in time.

  • $\begingroup$ Dumb 2k question: what are the tags? Is reality-check present? $\endgroup$
    – PatJ
    Feb 1, 2017 at 19:10
  • $\begingroup$ @PatJ Oh..I forgot the reality-check tag. I added three tags: physics,magic,science-based. $\endgroup$
    – fairytale
    Feb 1, 2017 at 19:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I also can't see the question, so can't fully comment, but here goes: combining the physics and magic tags can lead to... interesting questions... Except in this case, it seems like you've created a world just like our own (physics) and then changed it in a well-defined way (magic). Better, you're aware of the tropes that you're using. Annoying: I really want to read the answers. In other words, I haven't a clue why it was downvoted, unless it was too broad or something?. This has been mentioned (briefly) in chat, and so far no-one's been able to give an explanation as to why it was downvoted $\endgroup$ Feb 1, 2017 at 19:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Mithrandir24601 There is only one answer: "It will all work normally Physics won't be affected. You will simply be able to do stuff that shouldn't be possible like infinite energy and stuff like that, but if you take into account that the energy is coming from outside then the physics should still work as expected. You'll just need to explain where this energy is coming from and how there is an infinite amount or at least so much of it." This answer is downvoted (-1). $\endgroup$
    – fairytale
    Feb 1, 2017 at 19:47
  • $\begingroup$ what is the point of the link "10k link" which leads nowhere, and what is the 10k - 10'000 views and just -3 votes as result? $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Feb 2, 2017 at 2:16
  • $\begingroup$ @MolbOrg it was added by HDE 226868. 10k link means the post require 10k rep to see because it is deleted. $\endgroup$
    – fairytale
    Feb 2, 2017 at 17:02
  • $\begingroup$ @fairytale hm, good to know $\endgroup$
    – MolbOrg
    Feb 3, 2017 at 1:08

2 Answers 2


First of all, this is absolutely not off-topic. Off-topic is punished by your question being put on hold by the fierce (but just) reviewing process. The downvoting means people just did not like your question.

When I first saw it, my immediate reaction was "That's probably interesting but I don't have the knowledge to even understand the discussion". You cite theorems and concepts that I don't know and don't explain how they articulate. Maybe some other laymen got disgruntled by that and downvoted. For how a physicist would react to your question, I have just no idea.

Some other thing that bugs me a little is your last paragraph "Mind is the first cause". This is totally personal, but I don't like it. It's mostly the handwaving theorem with the appearance of science but should never be delved into and mixed with physics because to me it doesn't make sense. Note that this is a really personal opinion, note also that I didn't consider downvoting just for that.

If you make your ideas clearer (what exactly makes your magic work, not just a list of ideas to make it work) and if you reopen your question, I'm ready to believe you can get the upvotes your idea deserves.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Just as a general point: it's ok, even encouraged, to ask expert-level questions that depend on knowledge of certain theorems or whatever. Linking them is helpful so more people will understand the question. The more specialized a question is, the fewer people will be able to understand, answer, and appreciate enough to vote, but these "long-tail" questions are fine. $\endgroup$ Feb 1, 2017 at 21:50

You don't need to suspend Noether's theorem. Energy can be conserved in a closed system. However, the universe act as if it is an open system.

The simplest example of this is energy from the Sun. This provides Earth with an energy gradient to support life on our planet.

Likewise you can simply assume there is a mechanism that acts as an energy gradient that can feed energy from the rest of the universe. Energy is still conserved as a whole for the universe in the same way energy is conserved while giving the Earth an open energy gradient.

This energy can be used to do whatever you want and where you want it. Fortunately, the universe is more than big enough to supply more than enough energy to do whatever you would like it to.

  • $\begingroup$ The problem is that I can't explain how the mind control energy, I think this breaks the Noether's current, because energy in some place is destroyed and energy is created in some place. I have given up on the physics/math explanation on magic, and probably I will explain magic in this way : worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3129/… Anyway, thanks for your help. $\endgroup$
    – fairytale
    Feb 2, 2017 at 17:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @fairytale You weren't under any obligation to use it. I had fun devising it. Conservation still applies, how energy shifts from one place to another was left open. The Hacking the Universe concept is great way to go for the mind control issue. Have fun with your world building. $\endgroup$
    – a4android
    Feb 3, 2017 at 4:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is an answer to the question itself, not to the meta question... $\endgroup$
    – Tim B
    Feb 3, 2017 at 14:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .