Talk:Conservation of energy

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by History Taskforce.

Energy High‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Violations of energy conservation?

https://phys.org/news/2020-02-simple-self-charging-battery-power-solutions.html https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5132841?download=true

This link shows a scientific paper by the American Institute of physics demonstrating a self-charging battery. It doesn't explicitly discuss energy conservation violation because I suspect there is some sort of coverup going on, but regardless of my suspicions, Its a very technical paper, beyond my ability to understand, so I think we should get some qualified physicists to look at this in their free time and verify whether "self-charging" means what I think it means.

From Phys.org:

"It gives rise to a device that self-charges without self-cycling — increasing the energy stored in it — as opposed to the natural degradation of the electrochemical process that makes the energy stored decrease by the dissipation of heat. The latter has applications in all energy storage devices, such as batteries and capacitors, and can substantially improve their autonomy."

Please try to resist the urge to dismiss this offhandedly, someone qualified should verify this. If they find that it is not as seemingly advertised, I advise that, before dismissing the paper, they SHOULD give clear evidence that shows that "self-charging" is used in a context outside the common vernacular. I suggest this, because if this paper does demonstrate energy violation, I don't want it to be easily covered up.

mass-energy "skepticism"

what is this:

"Theoretically, this implies that mass can itself be converted to energy, and vice versa. However, this is believed to be possible only under the most extreme of physical conditions, such as likely existed in the universe very shortly after the Big Bang or when black holes emit Hawking radiation."

who is "fixing" this article without having the slightest clue what you're talking about? mass-energy equivalence isn't some speculation, unfortunately for the victims of atomic bomb usage. how is this an accepted version? 24.56.238.67 (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion under General Relativity is POV

It is literally POV, reduced to and specifically cited as being one person's view. It's also wrong. The pseudo-tensors in the formulation of the energy conservation law in General Relativity are natural objects that reside in natural bundles and, as such, have well-defined transformation laws under coordinate transformations. The only thing that distinguishes them from tensors is that their transformation laws are not tensorial. However, in contemporary differential geometry, there is no currency in requiring objects or their transformation laws to be tensorial. The notion that there should be is, itself, a holdover from the early 20th century, predating the rise of the contemporary field which - even in the 21st century - much of the physics literature has not fully caught up to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:aa00:151f::193b (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]