Thread: why total amount of energy/matter conserverd ?

Science is developed by questioning the natural phenomenon. Theory of gravity was not to be descoverd, if falling of apple was not questioned. If we questioned, why total amount of energy/matter conserverd or remain constant? Then what will be the answer.

May be the answer will be, Energy/matter are not created or destroyed. Therefore it remain constant. But I think it is not a proper way for answering this question by science.

Matter is certainly not conserved. Maybe you mean mass, which is conserved and is essentially equivalent to energy.

The law of conservation of mass/energy does have an explanation. It is not readily explaneable in terms of Newtonian differential physics ( I think, help me out here DrR ) where one value is obtainable from the previous in terms of small changes. But if we consider the action, ie the summation of the difference between kinetic and potential energy over the whole path ( principle of least action attributed to deMauripitius and Lagrange, special case of least time for particles moving at C attributed to Fermat ), then we find that any continuous transformation in time is invariant and leads directly to conservation of mass/energy ( attributed to Emmi Noester, turn of the century German mathematician ).

I would like to know about "law of conservation energy".

Originally Posted by MigL

Matter is certainly not conserved. Maybe you mean mass, which is conserved and is essentially equivalent to energy.

The law of conservation of mass/energy does have an explanation. It is not readily explaneable in terms of Newtonian differential physics ( I think, help me out here DrR ) where one value is obtainable from the previous in terms of small changes. But if we consider the action, ie the summation of the difference between kinetic and potential energy over the whole path ( principle of least action attributed to deMauripitius and Lagrange, special case of least time for particles moving at C attributed to Fermat ), then we find that any continuous transformation in time is invariant and leads directly to conservation of mass/energy ( attributed to Emmi Noester, turn of the century German mathematician ).

Do you not think, it is a (your) answer for "How energy/mass conserved ?"

My question is, why energy/mass conserved ?
now the answer for this question is "energy/matter neither be created nor be destroyed"

Is there any other answer ?

Why does everyone fixate on why? Science doesn't deal much with why.

[QUOTE=URAIN;275541]

Originally Posted by MigL

My question is, why energy/mass conserved ?
now the answer for this question is "energy/matter neither be created nor be destroyed"

Is there any other answer ?

The problem is :
You are posing a metaphysical question and should be prepared and willing to accept a metaphysical answer.

But don't be scared by this word methaphysics is simpler than physics!
(most physicist react to it as vampires to garlic ... ...). So brace up...!

Physicists describe in a poor way they discovered that energy is

Originally Posted by
The problem is :
You are posing a metaphysical question and s[I

hould be prepared a[/I]nd willing to accept a metaphysical answer.

What is your metaphysical answer?

My question is, why energy/mass conserved ?

Well, where can it go if it is not conserved?

Most of the rules of physics derive depend either directly or indirectly on the assumption that energy/mass will be conserved. If it weren't conserved, then using mathematics to analyze it would be nonsensical, because there's no need for the equations to be balanced anymore.

Here is Emily Noether's theorem concerning symmetry and conservation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem.
Forget what that peterpan joker said about "metaphysics", that's all just pure CRAP​!

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Why does everyone fixate on why? Science doesn't deal much with why.

Agree. Once you know the way something behaves and the mathematical equations that govern it, that's all there is to know. All you can do is find a more accurate or general description, not some sort of ultimate "why."

My answer did deal with why. The fact that you didn't understand it or weren't prepared to research it is not my problem, but yours.
The 'reverse of Noether's theorem is also true. A violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy implies a symmetry violation of continuous transformations in time. In simplest terms this means that if mass/energy is not conserved, two experiments performed at different times would yield different answers.
This is clearly NOT the case.

Originally Posted by URAIN

What is your metaphysical answer?

can you recognize a metaphysical question when you see one?

Thanks to all of you for participating in the discussion.

GiantEvil said peterpan making joke. I dont no, peterpan quoted in sirious or not.

But, what he said is correct.

I have came to know a principle base for reincarnation and a small book is written in other language. Now for readers convenience i am translating it into an article. In shortly i will post in a google site. (not in blog).

Now law of conservation energy knows all living organism have energy and matter but it does not say, living organism conserved. I think it is the drawback of this law. But in my article this drawback also filled up and for question, why energy/matter conserved ? readers will get correct natural phenomenon by the answer.

I request the reader to read this and send this link who are interested in philosophy and physics.

This is the translation therefore pls you go to the subject and not with grammer.

Shortly I will post and that link will be attached here.

thank you

I hope this thread will not close. In shortly I will give a link to it, when I will post the my article which contains conservation of this universe

Dear freinds, As I promised to you, now I have posted my theory in blog and site.

From this theory you can perfectly say this world will be invariant, without using any assumptions or in lacking result of past experiments.

This world may be contain number of unknown galaxies but without applying neother's theorem to unknown universe, you can say

This universe had invariant at past.
This universe has invariant at now.
This universe will have invariant in future also.

You can get the answer for the question, Why the conservation takes place?

If you have pdf then go to *

Else go to *

*Links removed - KALSTER. Sorry URAIN, you can't use our site to promote yours.

Originally Posted by URAIN

Science is developed by questioning the natural phenomenon. Theory of gravity was not to be descoverd, if falling of apple was not questioned. If we questioned, why total amount of energy/matter conserverd or remain constant? Then what will be the answer.

May be the answer will be, Energy/matter are not created or destroyed. Therefore it remain constant. But I think it is not a proper way for answering this question by science.

In principle, a single reproducible-on-demand experiment, demonstrating non-conservation of energy, would be sufficient to abandon the law, at least temporarily. But I think that some particles, similar to neutrinos, taking away the unaccounted energy, would later be discovered. The law of conservation of energy will most likely remain valid.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

*Links removed - KALSTER. Sorry URAIN, you can't use our site to promote yours.[/QUOTE]

If I had known these kinds of thoughts then definitely, I hadn’t posted links here. Two times I said that I am going to post links here. But no one hasn’t said as this is not allowed. Then I had thought like other science forums this is also allow to post links.



Any way thanks to you.

No biggie. Just so you know.

If you really want to discuss your hypothesis, then please make use of the New Hypothesis and Ideas section. You can post your link in the first post only, and then it can be discussed, but you have to be willing to reproduce small parts of it there when requested and take part in discussion. Don't simply tell people to visit your site. (not that you have necessarily done any of these things, just so you know what to do and what not).

If you agree to this, then please be my guest!

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Why does everyone fixate on why? Science doesn't deal much with why.

That is the truth. Not why. But how.