Isn't the Law of Conservation of Energy a matter of faith?

Question

I've heard so many people aver that "energy is always conserved", even in extreme cases such as inisde of black holes and the moment of the Big Bang, or even in "alternate universes". Besides emprical evidence, is there really any proof that energy is ALWAYS conserved, in any and every instance? If so, what's the proof. If there's no proof, then isn't it a matter of faith? That is, it has to be assumed true?

Answer 1

I think you have misunderstood the difference between math, science, and religion.

Math does proof.  Religion does faith.  The scientific method involves the making and testing of hypotheses.  Conservation of energy is a well tested hypothesis that has held up under a wide variety of circumstances.  Does it hold at the big bang?  Who the h**l knows?  Physics as we know it breaks down before we get back that far.

The underlying point that some scientists don't always acknowledge the provisionality of their theories is correct.  But your specific statements and arguments are poor.

Leanne--"the equivalence of math and energy"??? Freudian slip?  I always felt just the opposite--pure math was the antithesis of energy.

Answer 2

Not a matter of faith, but rather an assumption. It ignores the basic question, if energy cannot be created, how did it come into existence?

Further, when heat escapes into space it becomes unrecoverable as it loses temperature; its further existence is purely theoretical, which roughly equals destruction.

Answer 3

well, i guess you can think of it that way.

so's gravity.

seems to work every time.

Answer 4

We take our hypothesis of what might have happened and test them against our observations, if they hold up, they become theories. Science is continuously refining and revising theories to better understand the universe around us. Until we have a better theory or something which contradicts the original theory, it is what we "believe".

It seems to me that the energy we have originates as mass converted to energy in nuclear reactions, either fission or fusion. Then your next question, where did that mass come from? When you figure out the answer, you will most probably generate more questions, that is one of the things that makes us human.

Answer 5

all science comes down to belief. belief is not the same as faith. faith is not based on observation. we have never observed energy just disappear, and it isn't logical to think that it can. but with that being said, it is still impossible to rule it out, because we cannot be everywhere in the universe at one time, and observe everything. so no, it is not faith. it is a belief, as is everything around you. you hand is a belief, it may not exist. it may be just a fabrication of your mind.

the ONLY thing that is not a belief is that your mind exists in some form or another. EVERYTHING else is a belief, there is no argument.

but, in the case of science and reality, some beliefs should and are treated as truths because they are observed over and over again and they logically make sense.

not all beliefs require faith.

Answer 6

This is something purely practical. An example is that when you f**t, your gas wouldn't disappear and though you wouldn't see it you would be able to detect it with the sensitive parts of your nose (nostrils) The heat that goes along with it in the form of energy would wander off into the atmosphere or be absorbed by straying organisms in an ongoing cycle of energy use. Sound energy would also be reduced to a lower amplitude and wavelength as the waves encounter friction along the way. The bottomline is energy ends up being used or kept by matter.

As soon as matter passes the event horizon of a black hole, it would be infinitely disintegrated, and add to the matter that is being infinitely being clustered, increasing the gravitational strength/energy of the black hole.  

Or to view it in a more simplified aspect, all matter would be concentrated into one point of singularity that would add to the matter that is already being clustered infinitely. Finally after all the energy is focused enough to create an explosion, two jets full of the energy sapped from gravity will emerge from opposite ends of the black hole, emitting nothing but pure energy into the expanse of the universe.

If you will imagine reducing a proton to a billionth of its size and stuffing matter all in that space around it - thats a similar situation to the big bang. within the fraction of a second you had hydrogen the main component disintegrating to helium and then birthing the rest of the elements as the big bang began cooling - enabling this. In a way matter is energy that has already happened.

to put this simply if you were to collect all the matter in this expanding universe and stuff it around the space inside a proton reduced to a billionth of its size, you would have the exact energy that created the universe.

when you burn a paper, the energy stored in the paper (matter) reappears in the form of heat which wanders of into the atmosphere.

Answer 7

We're really talking more philosophy than physics here, but in the end anything we consider to be 'real' has an element of faith to it.

For all we know, we could be living in 'the matrix', or be strange insect-like aliens dreaming some communal dream, or any of a (possibly infinite) list of possibilities.

Physics involves data which can be observed.  That (along with just about everything else in life) means assuming that our senses are usually giving us a reasonably accurate report of the world around us.

As for doubt, it is the nature of physics to constantly question, and consider alternatives if the data doesn't come out as expected (or create experiments to test alternative hypothesis and see if the results support that hypothesis over the previously dominant theory).

I have (or at least perceive) two links, one regarding Godel's incompleteness theorem - which involves math and philosophy, and a second to a paper by Dr. Steven Hawking extending that theorem to the realm of physics.  Perhaps they will shed some insight on the incompleteness of human knowledge.

Postscript/addendum: the law is of conservation of energy and mass, not just energy, as the two can be exchanged with one another.  (hence the famed equation E=mc^2

Answer 8

"Proof?"

The math department is down the hall.

EDIT: When a scientist makes an empirical statement, it is not "absolutely proved" or "absolutely certain." Scientists understand this, but apparently you do not. What it is is our best understanding of the phenomenon involved, based on numerous repeated observations and backed by thoroughly tested theory. It represents the knowledge we have accumulated about the phenomenon. "Faith," on the other hand, denotes wishful thinking based on nothing. Do you see the difference? Scientific statements are based on knowledge, not faith, unless you have chosen to redefine away any meaningful definition of "knowledge," which it appears is exactly you wish to do. The postmodernist department is in the temporary trailer next to the trash dump.

Answer 9

Simply stated, the equivalence of mass and energy has proved to be very valid - and whether we think outside of the box or not, no contrary evidence has ever been put forward which would prove otherwise.

Statements such as the conservation of energy are not taken on faith - they are accepted through exhaustive and extensive tests and experimentation. All it would take is a single valid contradiction to disproof the statement - and, despite the multitude of experiments which support this statement, none has been put forward which invalidates the statement.

Note: Corrected typo / math to mass.

Answer 10

It's an observation.  Actually, it's a simplified or generalized expression of a set of observations.  It's useful if you apply it correctly.

All of science is a matter of faith in cause and effect, that the physical universe consistently behaves in certain ways, according to patterns we call laws of science.  That philosophy started with Aristotle.  It has held up very well to testing.

All assumptions need to be challenged at the big bang.  And especially if you start talking about 'before' the big bang.

Answer 11

If you're going for rigid proof, just about every law in science has gaps. The logic flows well enough until you get to a certain point, where you have to make assumptions which must be accepted by faith.

As I see it, scientific theory is like peer pressure. What constitutes theory is what the majority of scientists in a field accepts to be the most plausible explanation of a phenonomon at a given time, because it has not been disproven yet. Of course they assure you that true theories are "falsifiable" meaning that it's open for someone to disprove it in the future, or for someone to come up with something "better". And those scientists who have not come on stream yet are vilified, "You don't believe this new theory? You are so not cool. You cannot hang out with us."

Some theories have been tried and tested, others have not. Many scientific beliefs of the past have been debunct. There is a difference between scientific theory and truth. We would like to believe that over time, theory tends asymptotically to truth. However according to the first law of Dr D, contemporary philosophy drives science, not the other way around. Thus science is more likely to tend to philosophy. But let me not say anymore before the other scientists beat me up after school.

Answer 12

Nice try.  Religious folk shouldn't dabble in science stuff - either immerse yourself in it and find out how it really works or admit you don't understand it.

But to answer your question, you're trying to address an area that even the experts rarely conjecture on (if you'd read the literature you'd know that).  We understand the physical principles that work in "ordinary" realms.  We understand the physics of what happens at sub-light speed and time that's not largely dilated and space not terribly warped.  What we DON'T know, is how the physics principles work in black holes, at times within a moment after the big bang, and that sort of thing.  No scientist worth his salt is going to claim to know all of what happens in those intense scenarios, and we are FAR from working out those details.  But then again, no scientist worth his salt is going to "have faith" in some ideas about what might be going on in there.  What is happening is happening, what has happened has happened, and what you "believe" about it is absolutely meaningless.  So.....no.....they don't have faith in it.  They postulate theories and test them and work out the mathematics and the quantum experiments, and work toward figuring it out.  No faith involved.