What would essentially happen if someone/thing proved Energy could be created/destroyed?

Question

As the 'Conservation Of Energy' rule is a fundamental law of physics, what would happen if it was disproven?

I have always considered the 'laws', as human finds/perspectives on the nature of life/universe. Are they really a definate? More than likely, but never forget they are OUR perspective.

What i probably should have added was: if the energy/mass balance was altered by creating/destroying energy...

Answer 1

Well... nothing would actually HAPPEN.

It's not like the instant someone discovers it, all of a sudden some kind of intense energy field will envelope the earth and vaporize the entire planet.

The guy would just end up getting a nobel prize, and then a bunch of science text books would have to be rewritten to remain consistent.

Answer 2

Specifically to sur2124,

The atomic bomb is NOT any exception to the law of Conservation of Energy.

Conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy (often expressed as the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy) in an isolated system (open system, i.e. our universe) remains constant. In other words, energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. In modern physics, all forms of energy exhibit mass and all mass is a form of energy.

The atomic bomb is no exception:

I would seriously like to find out what inclined you to think that it was an exception.

Please email me if you like.

Here are some sources for you to read up on to understand why it is not an exception to the rule: (See first 3 sources below)

To the question itself:

When you say, disproven, I assume thru the scientific method that another scientist has found another theory that replaces this law.

And by scientific method I referr you to the steps where a law is enacted:

Observation
Hypothesis
Theory
Law

Of course the last three stages consist of consistant testing, experimentation, peer review, confirmation and etc.

A law in the sense you are trying to imply cannot be simply disproven. If the data doesn't fit the description, then typically the law is researched and changed to fit what observations there are.

In a sense this is an open-ended question.

First you imply a someone/thing, so my question would be what "thing" are you referring to?

You also state "...proved..."
What exactly do you mean by that?

It is nothing to say someone/thing proved this or that. In order for it to be taken seriously in the scientific community, it MUST be reproduceable through the methods described by the one who claims to have proved it by anyone qualified in said field to confirm said methods.

There are many psedo-scientific claims by those who claim "free-energy" sources all the time. Just use the good 'ole google site. NONE of these claims are based on any type of scientific fact.

As far as your second question is concerned:

"Are they [laws] really a definate?"

A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. They are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community.

Please read the 4th source listed below for more understanding.

Answer 3

Youre right to question the term laws. They are only laws in that they have never observed to be broken.

If a current "law" is broken it would probably be replaced by a new law. The "laws" of physics were changed with the development of quantum mechanics, traditional laws didnt always make the right predictions. Laws are not definate, however the conservation of energy is very fundamental, if it was being violated very very very strange things would happen.

Answer 4

Energy is not well understood in Phyiscs.Therefore there are too many unproved assumptions about it.
First of all energy is not a quantity. It is a phenomenon.
When a mass is in motion it is said to have energy.
The mass does not have energy unless there is a Power transfer by collision to give that mass energy.Hence we have a creation of energy in this process.
Where the Power comes from is a dicussion beyond the scope of this question.(it would involve a Biblical explanation)
So its not a conservation of energy which is the question but actually the conservation of Power.
The laws of thermodynamics indicated that energy is lost in a mechanical process. And without energy decay no work could be obtained.That means you cannot obtain 100% of the energy input and convert it to 100% of work.
There is no conservation of momentum or Energy in relativity
theory.
The reason is that there exist no perfectly elastic mass structure.So in collision between 2 masses there is always a mass and energy loss.

So the law of conservation of energy is only an approximation.


All formulas in physics and chemistry are only approximation there exits no perfect answer and solution.

Answer 5

We would have to throw out a lot of physics textbooks. A change in such a fundamental law would mean that a lot of how we see the universe would have to be altered - but I don't think it's likely to happen.

Answer 6

That is easy-someone or a group of someones would use it to gain power over everyone else. Or in a perfect world (not possible) We would all live in peace with one another and greed would never enter the picture. And we would always have enough for everyone. Utopia

Answer 7

Energy can be created or destroyed using e = mc2. In the atom bomb energy is created from mass. It is the quantity of mass/energy that remains constant.

If this was found to be incorrect, it would be possible to make mass (substance) from nothing - object could appear from nowhere. Also energy could appear from nowhere.

Steven Hawking has a website where he likes answering thsi kind of stuff.

Answer 8

You misunderstand what has been shown...that's that capability & count are in simple terms manifestations of the comparable ingredient, that the quantity of count/capability interior the universe is fixed, and that subsequently capability would not "disappear", it in simple terms transformations into yet another kind (with the finished gadget capability conserved). once you die, which you quite will, all of the capability of the chemical & organic and organic procedures that make up "you" will in simple terms dissapate into your ecosystem; as your physique cools to ambient temperature, that warmth capability would be absorbed by utilising even if surrounds you as you cool. The capability trapped on your molecular makeup would be transferred into your ecosystem as your physique decomposes. The capability on your own atoms, of direction, will stay greater or much less consistent anyplace they finally end up...

Answer 9

Well if that ever happened, God, as we call him now, would think of it something as a practical joke to make a little dot, then blow the cr@p out of it in the biggest BIG BANG the universe ever has saw.

Answer 10

Simple: we wouldn't have to pay for gas or electicity.

And no, the laws aren't definite at all. In fact, NONE of science is. It's all speculation.