Energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. I had planned to write about that fantastic equation, helping non-physicists to understand its meaning, but I was beaten to the punch by a large number of folks, including Peter Tyson, who did quite a good job.* Then, I thought of debunking an idea which has circulated, to the effect that Einstein plagiarized someone else’s work when he presented his ideas on that equation, which is, I believe, an unfortunate misconception. Finally, I chose to write about the topic of energy invariance and why I think it is wrong.
First of all, what is the physics principle of energy invariance? It is the idea that the amount of energy in the universe is constant. Now, energy can take the form of matter, which is the main thing that the equation E=mc2 conveys. (E stands for energy, m stands for mass and c stands for the speed of light.) So, when you look at the night sky or the flames in a fireplace or the glow on your friend’s face, you are actually seeing pure energy. Matter can be converted into light, and vice versa.
My concern with the idea of energy invariance is that it leaves no room for miracles. Okay, if you are a physicist supposedly without faith — science requires a form of faith, even from an atheist — please don’t stop reading. Hear me out.
Some physicists estimate that the total amount of energy in the universe was zero at the moment of its inception, with different forms of energy cancelling one another out. That idea presupposes that the universe sprung up spontaneously out of nothing. Would that be considered a miracle? Others argue that there is an infinite number of universes, making none of them unique. Would your existence not be a miracle? Some argue that our universe is repeatedly expanding and contracting. What miracle started that process? What is a miracle? Is it not something that can’t be explained, that defies logic or expectation?
Let’s try to take a leap of faith here, if we have given up the notion of causality. What is more likely, spontaneous combustion of a pool of water or the intervention of an all-powerful God? (1 Kings18:38) Where in all of the sciences is the idea of absolute spontaneity accepted? Why would we accept it about our own existence? about the existence of our friends? If we look for reasons and causes and origins and purpose, and if we believe that something about our life is meaningful, where did we get that idea? Are we that creative? And if we are creative, where did that come from?
Here ends part 1. Stay tuned for part 2.
* The Legacy of E=mc2, presented on PBS “Nova” online.
