Talk:Conservation of energy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sean Carroll

Not sure if this was discussed before, but Sean Carroll here and here says very unequivocally that energy is not conserved when spacetime expands or contracts. Since the universe is expanding, there is more dark energy made from what I understood. Can this be incorporated to the article or is it not mainstream thinking? Nicehumor (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Reading the article, it appears not to be the opinion of one author, but a summary of what is going on in the field. I think a reference should be made with an appropriate link to and article on cosmology. PAR (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Would other editors agree with you? And how should this be reworked? I would not want to make a big unwarranted change. Nicehumor (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say that these two articles by Sean M. Carroll, taken alone as they appear to be here, do not make reliable sources. By that I do not mean to say that they are wrong. I just mean to say that they do not pass the Wikipedia test as reliable sources for scientific matters. Wikipedia is not a media commentary. I would say that more Wikipedia editing research is needed to better establish reliable sourcing in this area. I think eventually that one has to distinguish what one might call terrestrial physics from what one might call cosmology. To try to cover them, with their very different frames of reference, on an even basis both in the same article, seems to me to be inviting confusion. For myself, I wonder if the term 'dark energy' is quite right. The idea is so radical that I wonder whether it should have a new term for itself, that does not just take the old term 'energy' and qualify it. We are said to be permeated by more 'dark energy', which we are totally unable to detect locally, than we can observe of ordinary energy, which we are masters at detecting locally. Is it really a good idea to use the same noun for both? I agree with the comment of PAR above that there should be an appropriate link to an article on cosmology.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure this is about cosmology and the much unknown idea of dark energy, so should this have a separate section or go under the relativity section from which it follows? And would someone know more appropriate links rather than Discover magazine? Also, he says, "The thing about photons is that they redshift, losing energy as space expands." Everybody agrees faraway light redshifts, but in a University of California link, they are more nuanced saying that energy could turn into "gravitational energy". Right now this article only says "The theory of general relativity leaves open the question". Could this be used to fill up some gaps? Nicehumor (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The present article is about conservation of energy. There is plenty of conventional plain vanilla physics in that. Enough to fill any Wikipedia article.

You are proposing to discuss non-conservation of energy, a subject laced with exotic aromas and flavours. I think it would be destructive and confusing to try to put into the present article such exotic material, "to fill up some gaps". I think it far better to start a new article about non-conservation of energy than to try to fit it into an article that is focused on its contrary. The article on conservation of energy will then include a link to the new article on non-conservation of energy.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not accurate to say "energy is not conserved in an expanding universe". More accurately, we simply don't have a good, general way to define energy in general relativity that's more interesting and useful than "the total energy is always zero". But the fact that this isn't known is NOT equivalent to the statement that "energy is not conserved". Carroll himself acknowledges this, and that expert consensus is mostly against him:

Having said all that, it would be irresponsible of me not to mention that plenty of experts in cosmology or GR would not put it in these terms. We all agree on the science; there are just divergent views on what words to attach to the science. In particular, a lot of folks would want to say “energy is conserved in general relativity, it’s just that you have to include the energy of the gravitational field along with the energy of matter and radiation and so on.” Which seems pretty sensible at face value.

There’s nothing incorrect about that way of thinking about it; it’s a choice that one can make or not, as long as you’re clear on what your definitions are. I personally think it’s better to forget about the so-called “energy of the gravitational field” and just admit that energy is not conserved, for two reasons.

So I don't think this article should make any such definite statement. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

some comments about an open system

An open system is one that has walls permeable to internal energy transferred by diffusion, and to some species of matter, for the present discussion say just one species, with mole number labeled n, though other species, with mole number labeled N, may be present in the system and in its surroundings. Denote the variables of state of the system by U, S, P, V, T, n, μ_n, N, μ_N with the usual meanings. The subscripts 0, 1 will be used to denote the initial and final states of the system.

An open system in its own thermodynamic equilibrium has to be also in contact equilibrium with its surroundings, both in the initial and in the final state of a process. This means that T₀ = T_{0, surrounds} , and μ_{n, 0} = μ_{n, 0, surrounds} , and T₁ = T_{1, surrounds} , and μ_{n, 1} = μ_{n, 1, surrounds} .

For the present I propose to consider the case in which the walls are rigid and immovable, so that any 'work' done on the system is isochoric. I propose to consider that idea that the surroundings do 'work' on the system by increasing the pressure in the surroundings, with time course P_surrounds(t), so that the surroundings lose volume, say by a decrement ΔV_surrounds , to the system, and so that the final pressure in the surroundings has increased to a new steady value P_{1, surrounds} . A component of isochoric 'work' done by the system on the surroundings is nominally apparently $W=-\,\int _{t_{0}}^{t_{1}}\,P_{\mathrm {surrounds} }(t)\,{\frac {\mathrm {d} V_{\mathrm {surrounds} }(t)}{\mathrm {d} t}}\,\mathrm {d} t$ , but it is far from clear how much of this 'work', actually done in the surroundings, actually enters the system. The volume of the system, by hypothesis, does not change, so that ΔV = 0 and ${\frac {\mathrm {d} V(t)}{\mathrm {d} t}}\,=\,0$ . This disposes of the idea that the 'work' done by the system on the surroundings would be measured by $W=-\,\int _{t_{0}}^{t_{1}}\,P(t)\,{\frac {\mathrm {d} V(t)}{\mathrm {d} t}}\,\mathrm {d} t$ . Since the temperature of the surroundings is, for a significant part of the duration of the process, lower than that of the system, and never higher than that of the system, it would be unconvincing to say that the internal energy that enters the system from the surroundings is as 'heat'.

For convenience we may stipulate that during the end-stage of the process, ${\frac {\mathrm {d} P_{\mathrm {surrounds} }(t)}{\mathrm {d} t}}\,=\,0$ , until eventually also ${\frac {\mathrm {d} V_{\mathrm {surrounds} }(t)}{\mathrm {d} t}}\,=\,{\frac {\mathrm {d} V(t)}{\mathrm {d} t}}\,=\,0$ , and P₁ = P_{1, surrounds} and T₁ = T_{1, surrounds} and the system will come to contact equilibrium with its surroundings in their final state.

As the process goes on, there will in general be changes in the pressure, temperature, and chemical composition of the system and of its surroundings.

For present convenience, let us consider a special case, and prescribe that the surroundings be a bath at controlled temperature and mole fraction, fixed at the initial values. During the course of the process, however, we cannot prescribe those variables for the system. They will be determined by the properties of the constituents and by the properties of the permeable wall. At the end of the process, when contact equilibrium has eventually been restored, the pressure in the system and in the surroundings will be increased and the chemical potential, in the system, of the non-permeating constituents will be changed, the temperature and the chemical potential of the permeating constituent, of both system and surroundings, will be back to the controlled initial levels, the internal energy of the system will be increased, and the entropy of the system will be increased.

If the system has only one constituent, so that there is no non-permeating constituent with mole number N, then the pressure of the system will reach the final pressure in the surrounds. Isochoric 'work' will have been done, in two stages, as the compression is actively advanced, and as it passively completes itself. The entropy and the internal energy of the system will have increased so that $\Delta U\,=\,\int _{t_{0}}^{t_{1}}\,T(t)\,{\frac {\mathrm {d} S}{\mathrm {d} t}}\,\mathrm {d} t+\int _{t_{0}}^{t_{1}}\,\mu _{n}(t)\,{\frac {\mathrm {d} n}{\mathrm {d} t}}\,\mathrm {d} t$ , while ${\frac {\mathrm {d} V(t)}{\mathrm {d} t}}\,=\,0$  and ΔV = 0 . Nominally the increase in internal energy was due to 'work'.

The following refers to the case with a non-permeating constituent with mole number N also present.

Since isochoric 'work' is being done on the system during the process, we may expect that during the process the temperature T(t) of the system will increase. During the end-stage of the process after the compression, though, it will decay back to the initial controlled value, T₀ , equal to that of the surroundings.

As the permeating matter enters the system, it will be accompanied by internal energy. As it penetrates across the thickness of the permeable wall and into the system, the permeating material will force back some of the material already inside the system. How will we measure this additional isochoric component of 'work' done on the system? It might be proposed that it must be considered to be zero, because the system did not change its volume. But force was exerted over a distance. And isochoric 'work' is not to be measured simply by volume changes in the system. I think it will be impossible, except by some arbitrary rule of thumb, to say how much volume the already present material will concede to the incoming material.

Something more or less like this has been in my mind throughout the course of this discussion. I wrote above of something like this offered by Münster, as follows by copy and paste:

"Münster 1970, p. 46 writes: "The situation is, however, quite different when we try to include open systems and chemical reactions in the discussion. We note immediately that the definition of the fundamental concepts of work and heat run into difficulties." He goes on to illustrate with an example. I do not think it appropriate that I quote verbatim the whole of his discussion. I will paraphrase the first part. Münster tells of a phase of interest with fixed volume and a semi-permeable membrane. Matter is forced from the surroundings through the membrane into the phase. According to Münster, "Work is obviously done", but is not reflected as pressure-volume work in the deformation coordinates of the phase of interest. I would hardly be sure that it was work done on the phase of interest. It is not captured by the formula in terms of P dV. But I feel that it put internal energy into the phase of interest. Is it a kind of isochoric work? Münster says "It is, therefore, not generally possible to to define clearly the 'volume work' done on an open phase. This removes, at the same time, the basis for the definition, according to §8, of the heat absorbed. This state of affairs may be expressed somewhat more precisely by saying that the adiabatic work required by §8 cannot, by definition, be done on an open phase." Some energy went into the phase of interest with the matter, and I would say that was internal energy added to the phase of interest, but I don't see how it can be split into heat and work. I think that is what Münster means."

I do not propose that my story just above is suitable to put into an article. But it is an attempt to explain what Münster means.

I think that this kind of stuff is not suitable for our article on conservation of energy.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Chjoaygame (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Smith cites Haase's definition of "reduced heat", but Haase does not think this is a definition of heat in a strict sense. An example of Haase's opinion is in R. Haase (1963/1969), Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes, translation, originally published by Dr Deitrich Steinkopff Verlag, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA. On page 15, Haase writes: "... the terms "work" and "heat" are ambiguous in open regions, as can be seen by means of simple examples[1a, 8]. Thus of the above formulas, only those that do not contain the work W and the heat Q are valid for open systems, as for example Eqs. (1–4.7), (1–5.1), and (1–5.2)."Chjoaygame (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Chasing up Haase's references. [8] is to the widely cited and perhaps first to discuss this, Defay, M. R. (1920), Introduction à la thermodynamique des systèmes ouverts, Bull. Acad. Roy. Belg. (Cl. Sc.), 15: 678–688. This article gives an example for an "open system" that reduces to nonsense, but in my opinion it is merely formalistic and doesn't provide physical insight; indeed it is rather like Smith's Figure 1 in some respects. This is because it doesn't attend to the detailed method that Carathéodory used for his 'simple systems'. I am guessing that Carathéodory had investigated this problem and worked out his scheme for simple systems, aware that it went as far as possible with closed system theory, and that open systems were a different kettle of fish, not allowing a unique general definition of adiabatic work, which is essential to his scheme. So he said nothing about it. [1a] is to a section starting on p. 57 of Haase, R. (1956), Thermodynamik der Mischphasen. Mit einer Einführung in die Grundlagen der Thermodynamik, Springer, Berlin. My translation of some of the introduction: "The concepts of ″work″ and ″heat″ are, however, in the case of open systems, undecided [unbestimmt][footnote reference to Defay article just cited above]; ..." On page 60 a "simple example" is given. It is practically the same as the one just mentioned given by Defay, and again in my opinion is merely formalistic, without physical insight because it likewise fails to follow Carathéodory's careful procedure. I think it is unenlightening. This leaves Münster's example discussed just above as the best I can find in the literature. I think it is adequate. Chjoaygame (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

In the examples above why is there no discussion of the "stress-energy" PV that exists in systems in relativity, even when dV=0? In the simplest case, a system of constant V and T that is pressurized to P, still gains PV energy. Real systems have some compressability and get some PdV also, but in the limit where mass is transferred in to keep V constant, and where T also does not change, then then entire energy change of a necessarily open system can be associated with this mass transfer and with the PV stress-energy. Here no work is done on the system but it gains potential energy anyway, and this is over snd above the mass-energy gained from the mass influx. SBHarris 04:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The concern here is with the possible distinction between transfers of internal energy as heat or as work.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

some physical imagery

At the risk of being accused of otiose original research, I will here try to depict in words what I think Münster is talking about.

The above scenario imagines a one-component open system with a wall permeable to matter and internal energy, with surroundings of the same material, at controlled temperature and pressure. For any material in thermodynamic equilibrium, it is assumed by thermodynamics that an increase in pressure establishes a decrease in volume. For definiteness, a material is chosen that increases its temperature when its volume is decreased at constant pressure.

One is interested in the possibility of describing this situation in terms of heat and work.

A process is envisaged in which the surroundings pressure is increased. Initially this increases the chemical potential of the surroundings, which drives some diffusion of the material from the surroundings through the wall into the system. This increases the pressure in the system. One might say also, loosely speaking, that it compresses the material that was initially in the system, and so temporarily increases the temperature of that portion of the material that was initially in the system. The pressure does not in the early stages increase by the full amount by which the surroundings pressure is increased. The newly arrived diffused material is also not at the full pressure of the surroundings.

Intuitively, for physical imagery only at this stage, one may ask has work been done so far? One could say that the surroundings lost volume to the system when it increased its pressure. It cannot be assumed that the volume gained by the system is equal to the volume lost by the surroundings. A force of the surroundings drove some material that was initially in the surroundings into the wall, and thence some of it went into the system. There was force exerted by the surroundings, over a distance. But at what point did the material that was moved transfer its allegiance from the surroundings to the wall, and then to the system? Did the driving pressure of the surroundings decrease as the material progressed through the wall? For an estimate of work done by the surroundings, what was the force and what was the distance? If that work can be calculated, how much of it was dissipated by friction as internal energy in the wall, and how much of that frictionally sourced internal energy was returned to the surroundings because of a temperature increase associated with the friction? If the pressure increase in the system leads to a temporary temperature increase in the system overall, now including the newly diffused material, does that lead to heat transfer from the temporarily hotter to the colder system, that is from the system to the surroundings? How does that fit in with a proposal that the material carries heat from the surroundings into the system?

These questions have been indirectly considered in the literature about assessment of work for closed systems with pistons with friction, and so forth. Some relevant primary research papers are:

• Kivelson, D., Oppenheim, I. (1966). Work in irreversible expansions, J. Chem. Educ. 43: 233–235.
• Canagaratna, S.G. (1969). A critique of the definitions of heat, Amer. J. Phys. 37: 679–683.
• Canagaratna, S.G. (1978). Critique of the treatment of work, Amer. J. Phys. 46: 1241–1244.
• Gislason, E.A., Craig, N.C. (1987). General definitions of work and heat in thermodynamic processes, J. Chem. Educ. 64: 660–668.
• Bertrand, G.L. (2005). Thermodynamic calculation of work for some irreversible processes, J. Chem. Educ. 82: 874–877.
• Gislason, E.A., Craig, N.C. (2005). Cementing the foundations of thermodynamics: Comparison of system-based and surroundings-based definitions of work and heat, J. Chem. Thermodynamics 37: 954–966.
• Canagaratna, S.G. (2005). The mechanical equivalent of heat and the first law, Amer. J. Phys. 73: 299–301.
• Gislason, E.A., Craig, N.C. (2007). Pressure-volume integral expressions for work in irreversible processes, J. Chem. Educ. 84: 499–503.
• Anacleto, J, Ferreira, J.M. (2008). Surroundings-based and system-based heat and definitions: Which one is most suitable?, J. Chem. Thermodynamics 40: 134–135.
• Anacleto, J, Anacleto, J.A.C. (2008). Thermodynamic interactions: subtleties of the heat and work concepts, Eur. J. Phys. 29: 555–566.

I am not proposing this material for the article, but only for this talk page to illustrate that the estimation of quantity of internal energy transferred as work is open to discussion.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should offer some contextual remarks for the above. The context is that an edit to this article has purported to tell about heat and work for a simple transfer in an open system, and that I have objected that reliable sources say that this cannot be done, so that the edit should be deleted. There has been some discussion as above about this. In the discussion, editor PAR has noted that the source cited for the edit has not tried to separate work and heat in the internal energy that is transferred with the transfer of matter. I have said that the reliable sources say that such separation is logically impossible, and that explains why the source did not try to do it. Yet the edit talks as if of heat and work for a simple transfer for an open system. The physical imagery above is intended to interpret the thinking of the reliable source, to make it easier to see why it says that heat and work cannot be distinguished uniquely in general as parts of the transferred internal energy. I think the need to delete the edit is settled by this material, but the defending editor seems unaffected by it. His defence seems to be that when the simple open sytem transfer has been completed, one can perform an intellectual operation on the open system, closing it, and then one can conduct a physical process of transfer internal energy as heat and work on the closed system. I think that such a sequence of acts, after the event, does not justify talk of heat and work for a simple transfer for an open system, and that the edit should be deleted.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

All of the questions you ask are the result of not fully specifying the problem. In particular you have not specified the thermal conductivity of the wall (which is needed to specify the heat transfer rate), nor the diffusion constant for the wall (which is needed to specify the mass transfer rate). You have also not specified the source of the counter-pressure to the wall. Is it simply the hydrostatic pressure of the system, in which case the work is reversible, or perhaps there is also a force of bulk viscosity opposing the increased pressure of the surroundings and the work is irreversible? Are the surroundings acting as a reservoir, such that the state of the surroundings is not appreciably affected by the process in question, or is it finite, and appreciably affected by the process? Do the surroundings and the system form a closed system? If they do, then yes, the volume lost by the surroundings equals the volume gained by the system. If not, then what are the constraints on the surroundings?

"At what point did the material that was moved transfer its allegiance from the surroundings to the wall, and then to the system?" - As is usually done, the wall is assumed to contain negligible amounts of any extensive parameter, including matter. Therefore the material "transferred its allegence" to the system when it passed thru the wall.

"Did the driving pressure of the surroundings decrease as the material progressed through the wall?" - You failed to specify the size and other constraints on the surroundings. If the surrounding system is finite, then, yes the pressure decreased, if it is a reservoir (effectively infinite) then no.

"For an estimate of work done by the surroundings, what was the force and what was the distance?" - The volume of the system decreased. The force is derived from the pressure on a surface element of the system from the surroundings, or equivalently, the practically equal and opposite force from the pressure exerted by the system on that area element. You have failed to specify the mechanical nature of the wall. The force may be due to just hydrostatic pressure if the motion of the wall is quasistatic, it may include viscous effects if it's not.

"If that work can be calculated, how much of it was dissipated by friction as internal energy in the wall, and how much of that frictionally sourced internal energy was returned to the surroundings because of a temperature increase associated with the friction?" - That depends upon the as yet unspecified details of the wall and possibly the viscosities of the material on either side of the wall, which you have not specified.

"If the pressure increase in the system leads to a temporary temperature increase in the system overall, now including the newly diffused material, does that lead to heat transfer from the temporarily hotter to the colder system, that is from the system to the surroundings?" - That depends on the unspecified thermal conductivity of the wall.

The scenario you have described is probably best analyzed by the Onsager method. To explicitly state your problem, you have to specify or assume known, the Onsager matrix for the wall and three thermodynamic parameters for each system (enough to specify the system), then all of the above questions can be answered (to first order). Note that in the Onsager theory for a one-component gas, the heat flux vector (and thus the heat) is clearly and uniquely defined. PAR (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is stated in general terms because that is what is needed here. If you want to make your case, it is required of you, yes of you, to prove that in general terms that this can be dealt with as a classical equilibrium thermodynamic process with a unique or non-arbitrary distinction between heat and work for an open system. Yes, it is you who have to prove it.

You would like to reverse the burden of proof but you can't legitimately do so. It is agreed that Smith 1980 doesn't try to make the split, and he cites a reliable source that says it can't be done, and I have pointed out that other reliable sources say it can't be done. You have no reliable source that says it can be done. It is up to you to prove that it can be done, with reliable sources to back you up.

Your questions show that you haven't even carefully read my statement of the problem. I won't go into too much detail, but I will observe that the system is prescribed to be of constant volume. Your comment, however, says "The volume of the system decreased." You don't read what I write for you.

You airily assert that "The scenario you have described is probably best analyzed the Onsager method." If that were so, then, to make your case you would have to prove that the Onsager method would reduce the scenario to an ordinary classical equilibrium thermodynamic process on an open system. The problem is not to do it to "first order" as you so airily announce. This is a general problem and a unique non-arbitrary exact solution is required. You continue to ignore that the Onsager method is for the continuum flux case, and that heat for that is defined in ways other than that for the classical equilibrium no-flux case, which is the one you are required to use here. You muddle between the two cases. In reality, the Onsager method demands many assumptions that mean that it cannot in a plausibly feasible way deal with a general process for a classical equilibrium thermodynamics. Even your suggesting the Onsager method shows that you are already trying to improperly evade the difficulties of your task.

You have a long way, perhaps too long a way, to go in order to make your case, and so far you seem not even to have started. I think you may only now be starting to see what is required of you if you want to make your case. I am not asking you to try, because I think you would be wasting your time on a wild goose chase.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You say "It is agreed that Smith 1980 doesn't try to make the split, and he cites a reliable source that says it can't be done, and I have pointed out that other reliable sources say it can't be done. You have no reliable source that says it can be done. It is up to you to prove that it can be done, with reliable sources to back you up."

You say "It is up to you to prove that it can be done, with reliable sources to back you up." The equation in question is $dU=\delta Q+\delta W+\delta R$. The thing that cannot be split up is $\delta R$ which is the internal energy added due to the added mass. Smith doesn't try to make the split, he says it can't be done, other sources say it can't be done, I say it can't be done. I have repeatedly said it can't be done. So what?. Splitting up $\delta R$ is not the problem. The question is whether the heat term $\delta Q$ can be clearly and uniquely defined, that is, whether dU can be split up into the three terms. Smith's whole point is that it can be so split, for a single component gas.

Regarding the solution to your proposed scenario, you ask a series of questions about a problem that have not fully specified. All the questions you ask do nothing to clarify the definition, or lack of definition, of heat, they only point out that you have failed to fully specify the problem. The problem is exactly solvable in principle, including the definition of heat, once you fully specify the problem. I airily asserted it could be solved to first order by Onsager's method which I now regret, seeing how that was rather irrelevant. Basically, the problem you pose is itself irrelevant, because, as Smith says, "We will take the global definition of heat to refer only to a process connecting equilibrium states." By "global" he means in contrast to a continuum description, which is the particular small-system/large-system scenario we are discussing. Your proposed scenario is asking questions about the passage between the two equilibrium states. Yes, I would have my work cut out for me if I wished to solve your scenario after you fully specified it, but I don't have to because its irrelevant. PAR (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You complain that I did not fully specify the problem. Well, I did fully specify it, but I have to admit that the full specification was not repeated when I made an additional comment with a subheading; I just wrote "The above scenario imagines ..." assuming that that would indicate that I was continuing to work in that above scenario. It seems you did not read the above scenario, because you have not responded to it, though it was written some time ago, specifically for you. If you had read it, it would have seemed obvious to you that at least you should ask did the subheading annul the specification of the above scenario, or was it intended to be continued. I think it reprehensibly careless of you not to have picked up on this.

You dismiss the scenario as irrelevant because you think that Smith's 1980 paper supersedes it. I have given what I think are sound reasons why Smith's paper does not do so. I say that you are using Smith to evade the real situation. But at least it is agreed that Smith does not try to split the internal energy that passes with the matter, and it seems also that he says it cannot be done. Smith does his splitting with an explicitly and arbitrarily modified definition of heat and work which makes no reference to the proper definition that is used here. I have spent some time explaining why that is not a solution to the present problem. It seems you have not read that either.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should repeat why Smith does not solve our problem.

You write that splitting up δR is not the problem. I say that it is the problem, which is about an open system, and I say that you are using Smith's scheme to illegitimately evade this, by adding irrelevant stories about δQ and δW for a closed system. More detail of my reason is as follows. The edit on the face of it refers to a simple thermodynamic process for an open system. But Smith's scheme does not tell us just about a simple thermodynamic process for an open system. His scheme tells of a sequence of operations and processes on a complex device that starts with several systems. The scheme starts with a process between an open system and its surrounds, in which matter is transferred accompanied by internal energy that is not split into heat and work. Then the scheme changes the scenario to a closed system upon which heat and work are imposed. The closed system part of the scheme, the only part that deals with heat and work, is not relevant to the edit which is about an open system. The article is about the principle of conservation of energy. It is inappropriate and unenlightening for it to detail a special device such as the one in Smith's scheme; a more general account is expected and appropriate for the article. The edit seems to say that heat and work can be defined for an open system, when they cannot, according to our present Wikipedia definition and to reliable sources, and I would say according to a proper reading of Smith.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

editing mass-energy equivalence part of lead/intro

You can see what I've just now changed it to. Please try to discuss (or improve) changes rather than simply undoing/reverting. I'm sure what I have can be made more concise. I left in some language like "material energy" that I don't really like, and some existing points that I didn't think were necessary. If you aren't familiar with what I'm talking about, pls. read the Mass-energy equivalence article itself. Here's what was in there before my edit:

In the twentieth century, the definition of energy was broadened. Material particles, also called ponderable matter, that have rest mass, were recognized as having equivalent amounts of energy. They are not conserved, and can perish into forms of energy, including kinetic and potential energy, that lack rest mass. For example an electron and a positron can perish together into photons of electromagnetic radiation. Likewise, non-material forms of energy can perish into ponderable matter.

In such a transformation process within an isolated system, neither the total mass nor the total energy changes over time, although the matter content may change. Therefore, conservation of energy, and conservation of mass, each still holds as a law in its own right (indeed they are restatements of the same law, when mass and energy are recognized to be equivalent). When stated alternatively, in terms of mass and of energy, they appear as the apparently distinct laws of the nineteenth century.

My comments:

1. Mass-energy equiv isn't just true by re-definition.
   • E_tot = m_tot c^2 is observed in light bending near stars and atoms having less mass than the sum of their unbound constituents.
   • If you "defined" E_0 = m_0 c^2 as false, then energy conservation would be experimentally disproven. This is the way every "new" form of energy is discovered: you have to call it a new form of energy in order for conservation of energy to remain true.
2. Mass doesn't "perish into" energy; the system already has the energy (equivalent to that mass) which just transforms from one form to another form. Mass is not destroyed in this process and energy is not created. Rather, rest energy is converted to other forms of energy (which have just as much total mass as before even though not as much rest mass).
3. If an electron is "ponderable matter", then what's a positron -- "ponderable anti-matter"? This article isn't about the various problematic definitions of "matter", which tend to change, for example, when we discover that a particle's "rest mass" was actually mostly due to the binding energy of its newly-discovered constintuents, rather than the rest mass of its constituents. Nonetheless, it's true that the original particle has mass when it's at rest.
4. "Matter content" isn't well-defined -- can't we just call it rest mass? I think the only uncontroversial form of the word matter is "ordinary matter" which means atoms and the things made of them, which can be used only as an example.

DavRosen (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Fields defined with respect to an inertial Minkowski system localize potential energy. Particles moving through space localize kinetic energy. Theories such as general relativistic gravity replace such fields with changeable geometry, and so do not localize energy in the same way. They also pre-suppose the meaningful existence of 'local' Minkowski frames. Some expression of localization of energy might still be appropriate in this article? You wanted to say that energy can move.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If there can be localized energy, is there some reasonable sense in which its location can be said to change? DavRosen (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

energy being additive and extensive -- in 1st para of lead

Is it necessary to get so detailed about both these aspects of energy and their definition, in the 1st para of this consv'n of energy article? It isn't made clear why these properties are central to conservation of energy, as opposed to simply being important properties of energy itself. Especially since the terms extensive and additive are not used further in the rest of the article. DavRosen (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This property is crucial to understand what does the conservation of energy mean for a particle decay, for example. And also for the electron–positron annihilation example that is mentioned in the rest of the article. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The lead section has to stand on its own -- it shouldn't simply list facts and definitions whose relationship to conservation is unclear, simply because these facts are important to a later section. The lead should simply say what energy conservation is, in the simplest possible terms. It isn't at all clear why the lead is the right place to have technical definitions of additivity and extensive(ness), or to carefully delineate their differences (as they arise in thermodynamics) in a way that the average reader isn't likely to follow. This is made worse by not explicitly using the same terms (additive or extensive) in the section where they're most important, instead leaving the connection as an exercise for the reader. Also, are both the terms and their differences crucial to understanding the examples to which you're referring? DavRosen (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with DavRosen that there is no clear reason for putting info about localization and motion of energy into the lead as it stands.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

More about lead section

total vs rest mass vs 19th century "mass"

I don't favor this in latest lead:

In the nineteenth century, the only mass that was recognized was rest mass, which was then believed to be conserved; it is now known not to be conserved as such.

I think this (previous) version of sentence was clearer:

The nineteenth century concept of mass did not distinguish between total mass, which is indeed conserved, and rest mass, which is not conserved as such.

because:

1. It explicitly contrasts the critical but potentially-consufing distinction between what is and what isn't conserved.
2. When a concept is generalized by splitting it, there's no objective way to assert that the original concept was equal to a particular one of the split pair. The 19th century "mass" had aspects of total mass (it's conserved and determines overall inertial and gravitational effects) and of rest mass (intrinsic property of the body, etc.), so it's a matter of debate which it was "closer" to.

DavRosen (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The "no distinction" version is a sophisticated twentieth-century reading of the nineteenth-century thinking, not rendering explicitly how the nineteenth century thought, and so being anachronistic, not a preferred historical way of expressing it (nor rendering how much unsophisticated but for many purposes quite practical twentieth thinking goes). Mentioning the nineteenth century thinking implies a historical viewpoint. What is and what isn't conserved is a logical distinction; what the nineteenth century thought is a historical fact. The logical point should have already been made above in the lead; I will make it so. The distinction between (a) what is conserved and determines overall inertial and gravitational effects and (b) what is an "intrinsic property" seems to me to be a special construct designed to make the nineteenth century thinking look silly relative to the clever twentieth century thinking; I would say they were mistaken but not silly. The historical point here, I think, is to show what is the difference between nineteenth-century (and unsophisticated but very much used and for many purposes very reasonable twentieth-century) thinking, and sophisticated twentieth century thinking.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

19th century mass "corresponded more or less with rest mass" is an opinion, not a fact. I'm quite sure there are published views on both sides of this view, so it won't really help to just find some citations that state one or the other. If we mention one, we should mention the opposite view as well, unless we can find reliable quotes that specifically state something to the effect that there is very broad agreement on one side and the other is just a fringe viewpoint at most.

19th century mass was often (sometimes explicitly and sometimes in effect) defined operationally by its inertial and gravitational effects; total mass is the only 20th century mass that meets this definition -- one can do experiments to prove it. What 19th century defn of mass is met experimentally by rest mass and not by total mass?

It's true that mass and energy can be said to be equivalent rather than one and the same (with different units). The same is not true for these consvn laws. Consvn of mass and of energy are not merely "equivalent" laws, they are one and the same law, no matter how you interpret mass-energy equivalence. What makes 2 laws the same law is if they rule out exactly the same set of hypothetical phenomena in the universe. Given the proportionality of mass and energy, there can't exist any situation, even in principle, that is consistent with conservation of energy but inconsistent with consvn of mass, or vice-versa. Thus their is no meaningful difference between them -- they have the same truth content. Anyway, one could just as easily say there are "three equivalent laws" (consvn of energy, inertial mass, and gravitational mass) or even more -- but why would we want to?

DavRosen (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you want to force our sophisticated twentieth century viewpoint onto a nineteenth century idea; I see that as anachronism, not desirable in a historical account. In the nineteenth century, mass was measured through gravity and inertia, and the mass of non-material energy was simply not imagined. The new idea of the twentieth century was the mass of non-material energy. Also new was the idea of the energy of rest mass. When nineteenth century people thought of mass they thought mostly of what we in our sophistication now recognize as rest mass, even though they measured it as we now measure total mass, through gravity and inertia; but they were not aware of the aspects of it that we are now aware of. Our twentieth century view is more accurate, but it is not how they thought about it. What nineteenth century thinking recognizes the mass of non-material energy as such, distinct from rest mass? Your question is a twentieth century question about nineteenth century thinking. You have a strong feeling that the twentieth century viewpoint is right, and should prevail. As to physics, of course you are right. As to history, I think it is anachronistic. The question is not as to fact, it is as to expression of ideas. This is not a question of opinion about fact; there is no question of fact, the twentieth century view is right, as you say. It is a matter of editorial opinion as to how to express things, as to relevance and focus. I see expression of ideas as the relevant thing for history, which is about how people thought, not focused on whether they had it right as we now rightly see it in our sophistication.

The laws are statements. They have more or less the same physical meaning, but they are different statements. You may justly say that they have the same "truth content", and you may justly say that they represent the same proposition, if you like to distinguish between statements and propositions, the propositions being the underlying meaning of the statements, which determines their truth content, the statements being forms of words or sentences. But having the same truth content is not being the same thing. A thing is what it is and not something else. The laws are statements with the same experimental truth content. You remark "one could just as easily say there are "three equivalent laws" (consvn of energy, inertial mass, and gravitational mass) or even more -- but why would we want to?" We wouldn't want three or more, but the nineteenth century and plenty of twentieth century people and texts, unsophisticated though they be, still think of and state two.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

don't go into conservation of mass in lead, but perhaps say that new forms of E are discovered, inclu. rest energy

Come to think of it, I don't think we need to get into conservation of mass quite so much in the lead -- there's a separate article about that. Sticking to conservation of energy, an incomplete work in progress below. By "ordinary conditions" I mean that the system is not moving at relativistic speeds, so m_tot ~ m_0 and we needn't distinguish them; this could become a footnote or link into a section of the article where we generalize the statement using two forms of mass to allow for relativistic speeds. We can still add something about conservation of mass, but mainly to refer to a section below or to the conservation of mass article which is a better place to deal with the viewpoints about "which mass".

...
While the energy conservation law itself has not fundamentally changed, new forms of energy have been discovered and included in the total energy, each new form being inter-convertible with known forms of energy. In the early twentieth century, one such discovery was of a the form of energy called rest energy or intrinsic energy, which is directly proportional to a an object's mass under ordinary conditions. For example, a nuclear reactor converts some of its fuel's existing rest energy to other forms of energy such as radiant and thermal energy, which are then released such that the fuel has less rest energy, and thus proportionately less mass, than before. This discovery is part of mass-energy equivalence, which arose from the theory of special relativity.

DavRosen (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(Now in response to latest article edit:) I still think it's important to understanding consvn of energy that its experimental consequences "change" in a sense (only in effect or indirectly but not fundamentally) as new forms of energy are discovered. And maybe at least mention that one such form is the "rest energy" of an object? Or, on the other hand, is the rest energy of a body always a form of energy in the same sense as kinetic or electromagnetic energy, or is it sometimes really a catch-all for any internal energy the object may have, whose nature we don't know (or care) about, but which can be detected via the inertia/gravitation of the object as a whole? For example the rest energy of an atom, when we look inside it, turns out to be a combination of rest energies of its constituents and and the binding potential energies among them, but we still call it the rest energy of an atom when we aren't concerned with its composition.
DavRosen (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on what's "imperfect" about the law of conservation of energy as it was recognized in the nineteenth century. They said energy is conserved. We still say that. Of course new forms of energy have been discovered/recognized/identified many times throughout history, but these weren't each yet another change in the conservation of energy law, which is defined in terms of energy, regardless of what new forms "energy" may be found to include.
(I suppose you could say consvn of energy is part of the definition of energy, rather than being a physical law. We are required by this definition to identify a new form of energy every time conservation appears to be violated. But consvn, in addition to being a definition, is still a physical theory as well, because it's always possible that we will find a violation that we never do find a form of energy to account for it, or that we define such a form of energy to make up the discrepancy, but it might have no physical manifestations such as actually storing energy in the sense of being able to convert in both directions with a known form of energy (and thus with all known forms). Or, to put it another way, the conservation law could be disproven if someone builds a perpetual motion machine that we are never able to invalidate.)

I also still don't see why we have to go into conservation of mass quite so much in the lead of consvn of energy article. Total energy being equivalent to total mass doesn't change the consnv of energy law itself; it's just as true as it was before. Mass-E equiv does two things: (1) identifies a new way to measure the total energy of a system: by its total inertia/gravitation, and (2) has thus enabled us to identify some energy (termed rest energy) that's not always already accounted for as a known form of energy, but we know is there because if its inertia/gravitation, and whose quantity we can change by converting it to or from forms of energy that we do already recognize.
DavRosen (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"I'm still not clear on what's ″imperfect″ about the law of conservation of energy as it was recognized in the nineteenth century. They said energy is conserved. We still say that." The law is not its literal words alone, it is a sentence with a meaning. The words were literally the same but meaningly different. They had a different understanding of energy from ours. They thought there were two distinct laws and they didn't know that rest energy belonged to the energy law.

"I also still don't see why we have to go into conservation of mass quite so much in the lead of consvn of energy article." For example, in thermodynamics texts, people mostly talk about matter and energy as separately conserved. They are not at the sophisticated level that you work at. I think it useful to let beginners know up front just how the sophisticated view, that there are two equivalent laws, or one physical meaning, relates to the unsophisticated view, that there are two distinct laws with two distinct meanings. I think people who don't know it already shouldn't have to read deep into the article to find that out. If you can find a shorter way to make the point clear in the lead, go ahead. I have reduced the space it takes up by coalescing the two paragraphs into one. The lead at present is not excessively long, I think. I accept that is not a decisive reason to allow something to be put into it, but it does mean that space is not a worry at present. We could leave out from the lead all mention of conservation of mass, I suppose. But as it is, I don't think the lead goes into conservation of mass very much. I think it reasonable to say in the lead that the two statements have a common underlying physical meaning, and I hardly see how to say that much more briefly and still make sense of it.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the article should not introduce relativistic concepts immediately. I object to saying that drawing a distinction between mass and energy is "imperfect" and "nineteenth century" even though they are true statements. The statement that our present understanding of mass/energy is almost certainly "imperfect" and "twenty first century" is also true, but I would object to that also. I would simply begin the article with something like "in classical physics", and then go on to describe the classical physics view, drawing a distinction between mass and energy without further comment. To a newcomer, they will not be burdened with relativistic concepts when they probably are still struggling with classical concepts. To a more experienced reader, it will be true, but incomplete. Then, after the classical concept is quickly outlined, we can explain that the classical concept is valid only under certain conditions, and give a short explanation of the relativistic concept and the fact that it is valid under a wider range of conditions. A reader should be given an explanation the way we as individuals learned it, the way it historically developed, as a series of steps from the simple, intuitive, everyday world concept to the more subtle, more general, and less intuitively obvious relativistic concept.

I think it unwise to use the vague phrase "classical physics" here.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I could see where Einstein might carry enough weight to declare the work of the likes of Newton "imperfect" and "unsophisticated", but instead he said that the reason he could see so far was because he stood on the shoulders of giants like Newton. We should not be standing on the shoulders of Einstein declaring the work of the likes of Newton to be "imperfect" and "unsophisticated". PAR (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the word "imperfect" because Editor DavRosen didn't like it. I did not say some approach was "unsophisticated". I said some approach was sophisticated.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I would take it even a little further. Rather than saying, or even believing, that both 19th century laws were incomplete (in that they didn't recognize that they were equivalent to one another, etc.), I would rather give credit to the nineteenth century for at least one of them, consvn of energy, being fundamentally correct, so long as we recognize that the understanding or recognized forms of energy themselves were incomplete. Thus the incompleteness was not in the law "energy is conserved" but in the understanding of mass being a representation of energy and especially that there are more forms of energy than were then thought.

I removed the word "imperfect" because you didn't like it. I think it unwise to try to say what is "fundamentally correct"; the word fundamental is vague.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The law of conservation of energy is almost inseparable from the concept of (not the particular forms of) energy. The principle that energy should always be defined in ways so as to preserve this (if possible), is of immeasurable value, and is just as valid today as it was in the 19th century. Without conservation of energy, we can't even define energy universally (well maybe now we can define it by inertia/gravitation if we chose to), because we need to be able to measure one form of energy in the same units as another (in order to see that they're conserved, for one thing), and sometimes the only way to do this is by converting between the different forms. If energy were created or destroyed in such a conversion, then we couldn't even compare the amount of one form of energy to another, and it wouldn't even be clear in what sense they are both forms of the same quantity (energy).

The consvn of mass law (b4 we had m-E equiv) was very different. It was an empirical law that could be tested, and discrepancies couldn't generally be eliminated by defining "new forms of mass" because mass was measured by inertia/gravitation without any conversion needed.

Thus, even if consvn of mass as a law was "incomplete", consvn of energy as a law wasn't. Perhaps a better place to go so much (in lead sect) into incompleteness of consvn of mass is in its article, not here. (or in a separate article or template specifically for this equivalancy of 2 laws, or within mass-energy equiv article)
DavRosen (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Modified first sentence

I modified the first sentence of the article, which had not included any citations, to make it conform with a reference, which I cited.

I didn't look at the Talk page before doing it. I hope my edit doesn't step on the toes of anyone who has had something to say about the lead section. Lou Sander (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sure it's a good-faith edit on your part, and I commend your wp:boldness. But I undid it because I don't agree that the first sentence of lede required replacement with phrasing from Encyclopedia Brittanica simply because the original sentence didn't itself have a reference attached to it. Insert a tag if you really think the first sentence needs to be challenged and attributed, but ledes don't always necessarily require refs since they summarize the article and/or make widely-recognized statements. You changed 1st sentence to "Conservation of energy is a principle of physics according to which the energy of interacting bodies or particles in a closed system remains constant[2]; the energy is said to be conserved over time." The wording "according to which" sounds to me like wording that subtly casts unnecessary doubt on the validity or acceptance of this principle by the field of physics. Consv'n of energy is a foundational principle (or better yet, law, as in the original and now restored wording) in physics; it's one of the only ones that remains fully "in force" from classical physics, even though our understanding of energy and some of its forms has chagned. The lead/lede has to be maximally understandable to the ordinary reader, and should convey the notability or acceptance of the principle, particularly in the mentioned field (physics). But we can certainly have a discussion here. :-) DavRosen (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I changed it because I couldn't find anything in the article that referred to it (I know that's not absolutely required in a lead), and it looked a little squishy to me. Upon looking around, most of the definitions referred to it as a "principle". They also mostly said closed system rather than isolated system, which according to its article can't exist in nature, and is only allegedly the universe itself.

Also I don't exactly love calling something a "law" without defining what that is. Laws of science and Scientific law might provide something here, if linked to. Just as a matter of good exposition, I'd advocate "Conservation of energy is a..." law, or principle, or whatever. If it says "law", I'd hope there was some reference to just what a science-related law is. Lou Sander (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"Law of conservation of energy" seems to be more common usage; you can have a scientific principle that is frequently violated (saying it's a principle doesn't necessarily means it's a principle that has any validity or evidence) while it's clear that a scientific law cannot be violated. Others might weigh in on this. We've been through the closed vs isolated system, either here or in a related article's talk page. The term "closed system" is ambiguous and your statement of energy conservation is true or false depending on which definition you mean. Isolated system is unambiguous; "can't exist in nature" is just pointing out that it's an idealization that you could approach (in principle it's possible to get arbitrarily close), but not achieve with infinite precision, as is true as well with any real-world experiments testing energy conservation. DavRosen (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you have any problem if the first sentence were to start "Conservation of energy is a law of physics that states..." (continues exactly as it is now)? Lou Sander (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think beginning with "In ______," is a pattern that's followed in a lot of the science articles, or at least physics. I think the reason may be to address people who come and say, for the energy article, "energy is really about your aura" or something like that, so the energy article doesn't claim to be about "energy" in general, but just the subject known as energy in some fields such as physics. Maybe someone else can elaborate.DavRosen (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Conservation of energy/mass

Doesn't the law of their equivalence imply that we are talking about one and the same law? –St.nerol (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Explaining Galileo's importance or lack thereof

In the History section, when Galileo's "celebrated 'interrupted pendulum'" is discussed, there really should be a link on this or explanation of some kind. If it's so celebrated, then interrupted pendulum should at least redirect to somewhere, (however it doesn't.) I've looked at Galileo's research in the Pendulum article, but at the very least I don't understand where the "interrupted" part comes in; people should be able to understand his (non-)contribution without leaving Wikipedia. Koyae (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

reason for undo of good faith edit

I undid a good faith edit for the following reasons.

The edit did not cite adequate reliable sources; this reason is not a comment about Kundalini yoga or about Chinese philosophy; it is about the proper ways to source a Wikipedia entry. Kundalini yoga and Chinese philosophy are bodies of thought or practice, they are not specified particular writings or texts by specified particular authors; only these qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia entries.

The edit relied not on physical thinking but instead it relied on word associations, semantics, and allusions. The word energy has ordinary language usages that were called upon in the edit, but that are not the technical usage of physics. The edit did not make this clear, and was therefore semantically misleading, because it confounded the different usages.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Aristotle's views

As the source shows, Aristotle was just there doing a literature survey, not stating his own views. The entry is thus misleading, since it seems to report Aristotle's views.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

OK then, it seems that Aristotle in the source ascribes this view to the unnamed first philosophers prior to Socrates. So perhaps we can say something like Aristotle quotes earlier Greek philosophers as saying that nothing is either generated or destroyed, since this sort of entity is always conserved.. Dirac66 (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I am a fan of Aristotle. He was perhaps one of the earliest systematic collectors and analyzers of natural specimens. He took trouble to collect a big museum. True, it was passive empiricism, not active empiricism: he did not engage, so far as I know, in controlled experiments. It took nearly 2000 years after him for that mighty invention; I don't think it fair to blame him for the delay. Within that limitation, he was a master scientist. So I like to see him given fair treatment.

I think if we want to cite an author of that antiquity, we should do it carefully. I don't see the point of a slap-dash statement. I haven't checked what conclusion Aristotle finally reached. I am just guessing that he would have analyzed and criticized the literature findings, and then made a fresh analysis of the problem. I think it fair that we should cite the actual authors of the views he recites, or find his conclusion if we want to cite him.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking it over, I see that the edit is just a half-baked semi-rehash of the statements that precede it in that section of the article. I was wrong to say "good edit". More accurately I should have just said "slipshod edit" and not asked for the exact reference; well, I am doing that now! Sorry, I didn't have a way of signing. Chjoaygame. Belated signature.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

link doesn't work

Prof. Walter Lewin. (MIT Course 8.01)

The link of the picture of Walter Lewin doesn't work. Should it be deleted?

Chjoaygame (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Pasting the title it google gives this page, http://ocw5.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01sc-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-2010/conservation-of-energy/work-and-energy/ However, the Youtube channel admin has not enabled embedding of videos. There are several videos with this particular 1999 lecture on YouTube, ie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gUdDM6LZGo Though i suggest to update the link to my above source from MIT, readers will eventually find the YT videos anyway and the ogg version is in the article. prokaryotes (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

In writing the above, I supposed that a responder would take into account the effect of trying the faulty links, to see the way in which they don't work. To see the problem, I suggest trying the faulty links. It isn't just a technical problem. The intended target of the link has, it seems, been deleted from its source.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

undid good-faith but inappropriate IP edit

I have undone this good-faith edit, for the following reasons.

I do not dispute the content of the edit. The reason for my undo is that the edit goes outside the scope of the article.

In Wikipedia, scientific articles confine themselves to a narrow approach to science, while edit was created from a wide approach, not the narrow one that belongs to this article.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Energy Conservation in GR

The articles claim that in GR energy is only conserved in special cases, and that the question of energy conservation for the entire universe is open, are disputed. The only source given for this is a Physics FAQ answer which cannot be considered reliable and which does not support the claim in any case. I will give an opportunity for people to comment before I change this. Weburbia (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)