How can we prove the law of conservation of mass

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the law of conservation of mass, specifically questioning how it can be proven or established as a fundamental principle in chemistry. Participants explore historical perspectives, experimental validations, and the philosophical implications of proof in scientific contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the nature of proof in science, suggesting that science does not provide proofs in the same way mathematics does.
  • Another participant argues that while the law of conservation of mass has been tested extensively without finding exceptions, it remains open to challenge if a counterexample were to be found.
  • Some participants discuss the historical context of Lavoisier's formulation of the law, noting that he based it on accumulated experimental data rather than a formal proof.
  • There is mention of mass-energy equivalence and its implications for nuclear reactions, which are noted as exceptions to the conservation of mass.
  • One participant highlights that conservation laws apply to isolated systems, which cannot release or absorb energy, raising questions about the conditions under which the law holds.
  • Another participant humorously suggests that warming substances increases their mass due to increased atomic velocity, prompting a discussion about measurement conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of proof in science, the historical basis for the law of conservation of mass, and the implications of mass-energy equivalence. There is no consensus on a definitive proof of the law, and multiple perspectives on its validity and application remain present.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes references to the limitations of measuring small mass changes in chemical reactions and the philosophical considerations of scientific laws versus mathematical proofs. The applicability of the law in various contexts, such as nuclear reactions and isolated systems, is also noted.

parshyaa
Messages
307
Reaction score
19
How can we prove the law of conservation of mass ? I said prove not the verification, how lavoiser decided that yes this law is followed by every chemical reaction, is there a proof
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Lavoisier was long dead before the idea of mass energy equivalence appeared.

Weighing devices are not accurate to detect the very small mass changes assumed to take place in chemical reactions , but einstein came up with the famous equation and we are told nuclear reactors/bombs loose mass ... it does all make sense..

But your right to doubt everything ... lots of dis-info out there , particularly in the field of astrophysics
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: parshyaa
Science, generally, does not prove things. Proofs are left to mathematicians.

To what level of certainty are you trying to "prove" the law of conservation of mass?

AM
 
I suggest you watch this classic:



It doesn't speak about mass conservation, but about why we can't 'prove' things is physics.
 
[QUOTEknorek, post: 5649643, member: 23711"]I suggest you watch this classic:



It doesn't speak about mass conservation, but about why we can't 'prove' things is physics.[/QUOTE]

Hey i know we can't prove things in physics or chemistry because physics and chemistry is all about satisfaction and i love this but the point is that , suppose i made a law that yes mass of reactant will always be equal to mass of product, i didn't applied it on every chemical reaction on earth, i just watch some of them, so there may be a fear that what if this law is not followed in that reaction, i simply wanted to know what must have made him satisfied that it holds for every chemical reaction(except for nuclear reaction due to Einstein's equation), so finally what made him to made this conclusion as a law, and thanks for this video i have already seen this.
 
parshyaa said:
what must have made him satisfied that it holds for every chemical reaction

We have tested it zillions times, and we have failed to find a single case where it didn't hold - so we assume it does. We also did thousands of other experiments, not related to chemistry - and in all cases we have found mass to be conserved (actually sum of mass and energy, as E=mc2 and they can be interconverted). We have a very thoroughly tested theories that use law of mass conservation as one of the underlying principles - if the law was wrong conclusions would be wrong as well; they are not. That makes us quite sure this law holds always, but it will still take a single experiment where it doesn't to prove we are wrong.

Don't hold your breath though.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: parshyaa
parshyaa said:
i simply wanted to know what must have made him satisfied that it holds for every chemical reaction(except for nuclear reaction due to Einstein's equation), so finally what made him to made this conclusion as a law.
As Feynman says, the first step is to guess the correct law. Lavoisier did that based on some experimental data that had been accumulated. He did not need "proof" before promulgating his theory. It was up to scientists to then test the theory to see if the Law's predictions matched experiment.

Some laws appear to be absolute laws (Law of Conservation of Momentum, the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Some are laws within certain limits or application (eg. Newton's Third Law, which does not apply to electro-magnetism and Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation which requires some very fine corrections provided by General Relativity). And some are just approximations (Hooke's Law). The Law of Conservation of Mass in chemical reactions would probably fit in the middle category. (i.e. chemical reactions release or absorb energy and, in doing so, they lose or gain mass. But the amount of mass lost or gained is so tiny that it is difficult to measure).

AM
 
Andrew Mason said:
chemical reactions release or absorb energy and, in doing so, they lose or gain mass.

Conservation laws apply to isolated systems and isolated systems cannot relase or absorb energy.
 
DrStupid said:
Conservation laws apply to isolated systems and isolated systems cannot relase or absorb energy.

Yes ...we sometimes forget that ...to clarify... if we put a mixture of H2 and O2 on a weighing device and ignited it , the weight would be the same ...only as the water cooled to room temperature would there be a mass change.

Warming things up increases their mass! The atoms have greater velocity and so have an increase in mass. Make sure you buy your loose fruit and vegetables on colder days , you'll get more for your money.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K