The discussion centers around the question of why energy is conserved in classical mechanics. Participants explore various perspectives on the concept of energy conservation, its implications, and the philosophical underpinnings of this principle.
Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the deeper philosophical implications of energy conservation. Some agree on the foundational nature of the principle, while others question its definitions and implications.
Participants highlight limitations in understanding, such as the dependence on definitions of physical concepts and the unresolved nature of deeper philosophical questions related to energy conservation.
This discussion may be of interest to those exploring foundational concepts in physics, particularly in relation to energy conservation, its philosophical implications, and the interplay between mathematics and physical reality.
ksoy said:I have been taught that energy is conserved since i started to learn about physics, but I am curious that why it is conserved?
Could anyone answer me??
Thank you very much
I agree. In my opinion the photon does not disappear in atom. It is inbuilt in a circulating wave increasing its frequency and, therefore, energy. It can be compared with a braided chain in which one part is added at preservation of the general length.omin said:One confusion that can be cleared to help understand conservation of energy is to understand the fallacy of dissapperance, which means physical things vanish: a once existing object becomes non-existent.
For example, we are taught early in school that one take away one is zero, which could infer that the first one had itself taken from itself, which means it was canceled out, it dissapeared. This has never physically occurred. You can move an object from one place and it will be said not to exist in that old place, but it will exist where it was moved. In the sense I have mentioned, you cannot take one from one. How would you take something from itself? It's just moving!
Dissapearance is positively based upon the concept of the displacement of an object to a place where one cannot sense it. Just because something is too far away, has divided into unseeable parts, accelerates to speed which makes it unseeable, or combines into some unrecognizable form doesn't mean it has become non-existent. It just means you don't sense it now.
Conservation of energy idea essentially says:
Existing things stay existing, but may be invloved in a change of form.
Existing things don't turn to non-existence.
Non-existence (whatever that is) doesn't turn into existence.
It's that simple.
Math is a self-consistent system on its own. 1-1=0 cannot be argued with. On its own, it has no physical implications. It is abstract. Understanding physics is in large part understanding how to apply mathematics to the physical world. It seems, you do not have this understanding.omin said:...understand the fallacy of dissapperance, which means physical things vanish: a once existing object becomes non-existent.
For example, we are taught early in school that one take away one is zero, which could infer that the first one had itself taken from itself, which means it was canceled out, it dissapeared.
Very vague. What for example do you define as a thing? Mass? Then what you say is wrong, since mass is not conserved. Energy? What you are saying is circular, therefore empty.omin said:Conservation of energy idea essentially says:
Existing things stay existing, but may be invloved in a change of form.
krab said:Understanding physics is in large part understanding how to apply mathematics to the physical world.
I agree only that the physical world is applied to mathematics. The five senses represent the physical realm. Thoughts represent the fives senses. Theories represent thoughts. Math is a theory. Math soley represents the physical realm, even if it's the determined nueral activity of humans.
What do I define as a thing? Something physical. What is physical can be sensed by humans. Sense become thought, so we know indirectly what's physical. "Things" are what exist.
What is mass? Something that is sensed. It's a thing too. Mass may have stipulaive definitions, but there is nothing vague about the idea humans sense something and asserting it's existence with a representative grunt. If we sense it, it matters.
I am only trying to bring out a confusion that helped me understand the concept a bit more. The point was to say: things are not created or destroyed, with a little explanation that they just are, yet moving. I think that is the most important point to begin with on the concept of conservation of energy.
Your definition implies thing of interest to me, but I prefer simple explantions at the outset.
Ivan Seeking said:...Physics describes what happens; why is a question of philosophy.