It's one of those things that is commonly believed, but no one will risk their degree or career to actually say it. It's mumbled in low breaths, and only by those directly involved at the quantum level, and mostly by those at CERN, where I have worked. I heard it all the time, but I have yet to see it written with a physicists name next to it.
Ah, okay. So, no source. Exactly what I predicted
Sorry, but a second hand report of hushed whispers doesn't hold much weight. If there was a general consensus that the theory of energy conservation was wrong, there would be an huge rush to be the first to publish the paper with definitive proof, as that would guarantee the author a Nobel Prize and eternal fame.
The statement that everything is equal cannot be true if you think about it. If both sides of a equation are equal, then they balance out to zero, and nothing happens. If one side is less, then you have some where to go with it.
Okay, I thought about it. I don't see a problem with both sides of the equation balancing. It actually makes a lot of sense, if you think about it. I have no idea why it should make a difference to our ability to proceed with further scientific investigation either way.
All laws of physics are subject to change the more we learn about it. No one would believe a crystal could be anything but a crystal, as the lattice structure has always been stable and the lattice lines up. Then comes quasicrystals, proving the theory "not quite right".
I like being pedantic, so I have to correct that for my own satisfaction; our
understanding of the laws of physics is subject to change, but the laws themselves aren't. Except they might be, but that's a whole different philosophy. Either way it's true that we don't know much, and we are simply doing the best we can. But when we promote a hypothesis to a law it is because it has relentlessly stood up to rigorous testing, retesting, and mountains of empirical evidence. I know that if there was any solid evidence whatsoever of a system breaking the law of conservation of energy it would be the biggest story of the day; it would be fantastic! Scientists everywhere would be shouting about it, not referring to it in hushed whispers behind closed doors.
It would be great to have such a scientific shakeup, but without a shred of evidence it's just a fantasy.
