[Choc13]

Hmm not sure if troll, but energy conservation is definitely not just some convention. It’s a fundamental thermodynamic law. Spooky action at a distance does not violate speed of light information propagation either. The particles have to be entangled before they’re set off in opposite directions. Only once one is observed does the other also collapse, but it doesn’t mean you can communicate faster than the speed of light because you had to prepare the information when the particles were together IIRC, it’s been a decade since I studied quantum information theory.

[ergocoder]

Why do you feel the need to say somebody is a troll?

Here: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-violations-energy-early-univer...

Here: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-space-faster.html - we are trying hard to reconcile this and categorize universe expanding as something else (e.g. not a movement that has speed because time itself is a dimension or something). But this is still up for debate, tbh.

Another example was one where we said CP symmetry was true (it was a law like a lot of things in physics) until it was violated by a weak nuclear force experiment.

And now we are holding the fort at CPT symmetry as the law.

In Physics, the evidence of anything is kinda light. A lot of reasonable extrapolations has been made. Still they are extrapolations (e.g. intelligent guess).

Even the big bang itself is just an extrapolation from the "theory" that the universe expanding.

To be fair, it is difficult to find good evidence because we can't dial back time, can't go observe things on Neptune, can't measure gravity at the subatomic scale, and etc. So, we have to work with what we can experimentally observe.

Our tools are getting better, and this is where the physics paradigm shift will come from.

You say like these are 100%. It is just a theory that we currently hold according to the little evidence that we have.

Failing to recognize that is straight up unscientific.

[Choc13]

Apologies, I wasn’t trying to call you a troll, more that your first comment seemed to me like it might have been made in jest, clearly it wasn’t.

The articles you’ve linked to are interesting and there are clearly many scientific discoveries to be made by studying the early formation of the universe which will test our current models. However I don’t feel like convention is the right word for laws like the conservation of energy, even if there are some difficulties with tying up these theories and new experimental evidence from events at the scale of the Planck length.

Convention to me would mean something that has been accepted just because it’s always been done that way and people didn’t really bother to question why, but I don’t think that’s the case here. But we’re verging on pedantry now so no point going down that route any further.