Maybe You Can Consider Love Scientifically?

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by GreenFlutterby, May 25, 2013.

  1. \n 
    As everyone will learn in a science class at some point in their lives, this is known as The Law of the Conservation of Energy.  It serves as an explanation for many phenomena in the natural world and it's possible that love may not be an exception.  We've all heard one terribly cheesy saying or another referring to the “power of love” that was most likely categorized as sappy nonsense and promptly disregarded, but even for those that aren't hopeless romantics, such sayings may actually hold some validity. 
     
    If you consider love as a physical energy instead of an abstract feeling, some aspects of it start to make sense, as the same laws can be applied:
     
    To start, we have to set aside the issue that always comes up when considering this law: If energy can't be created, then where does it come from?  Just as with any other form of energy, the origins of “love energy” would be ambiguous.  If you are religious, energy was brought into existence by an all-powerful deity.  If you prefer scientific beginnings, the Big Bang created all of our energy.  If you aren't sure what you believe, it just got here somehow.  Regardless, finding a definite answer concerning its origins is just as impossible as knowing exactly what happens when you die.  Unfortunately, some answers are, and will remain, out of reach for humans.  It's just one of those things that you have to accept as fact and move on.  I'm really not one to blindly accept concepts, but seeing that this assertion is a fundamental component of Physics, attacking it would be attacking the very basis of the means by which we explain the world around us (and without any concrete evidence, I might add), thus I'm choosing not to address that argument in this essay.  So…energy.  It's here.  It exists.  Get over it.
     
    With that out of the way, it can be hypothesized that a certain amount of “love energy” exists within a closed system, in this case one's self.  Such energy is expressed in different forms throughout our lives.  As babies/children, our energy is directed towards our parents and other family members.  As we get older, that same energy will be directed towards other things: friends, pets, our jobs, significant others, and a whatever else we deem worthy of loving.  One may argue that as we transition from infants to adults, our capacity to love increases, and perhaps this may allude to an increase in total “love energy,” however it would more so be an increase of our conscious abilities/awareness of this energy, rather than an increase in the total amount of energy, that would account for this perceived change.  It should also be noted that love is never evenly spread amongst everything, as anyone can relate to, thus this ties back to the concept of no new energy being created.  Since the total amount of “love energy” always remains the same, as we get older and we form more relationships with people and other important things, we end up prioritizing and deciding who or what gets part of that energy and how much.  This would explain why you don't have 8 best friends or why you have that one favorite pet; because there literally just isn't enough love to go around. 
     
    Now, in general, love is an energy that has positive effects, such as happiness or a general feeling of satisfaction.  These positive effects are sustained as long as you have an outlet for your “love energy,” and thus everything is in balance.  If there is no outlet for this energy, that same energy will be transformed into internalized energy, which accounts for the negative feelings and reactions that can occur after instances such as the death of a family member or close friend, a break up, losing a pet, getting fired from a job you were really passionate about, etc.  Since you no longer have that object to direct your love to, your “love energy” no longer has a destination, thus it just concentrates inside of your being.  As with many physical objects, a build up of energy in an area with limited space can have drastic effects, hence fiery explosions and nuclear meltdowns.  The same could occur within the human body in the form of depression, anxiety, and other emotional side effects.  As energy can't be destroyed, this law explains why it is so important to be able to find another outlet for enclosed the “love energy,” otherwise that energy will maintain the same intensity and continue to affect one's self.  This is why people stress the importance of spending time with friends/family or immersing yourself in new activities that you are passionate about after any form of loss, as this provides new outlets for love and restores the natural equilibrium.  However, as with pretty much every physics concept, time is always a factor in the equation.  The amount of time is takes to restore the equilibrium depends on how much “love energy” you had invested in a particular person/object.  If you had chosen to focus a large amount of “love energy” on someone/something, it would obviously take a longer amount of time for the energy distribution to correct itself than if you had lost something that had a smaller amount of energy invested in it. 
     
    Such concepts could also explain why loss affects some people more greatly than others.  Let's say that you lost all of your family and friends except for your husband/wife.  All of your “love energy” would be invested in that one individual.  If you had the misfortune of losing that one person, every bit of that energy would cease to flow simultaneously and suddenly transform into a huge amount of internalized energy, manifesting as grief and pain.  This hypothesis could offer an explanation as to why some older couples seem to pass away together, as the energy equilibrium is so severely disrupted in the remaining partner that it can't correct itself in an efficient manner, causing a tremendous energy backlash that is too overwhelming for the human body to manage, ultimately causing death by grief.  This idea also gives true value to the advice parents give you about not investing too much of yourself in a relationship.  If you choose to allot a huge amount of “love energy” in someone/something that may only be temporary, you run the risk of increasing the severity of the equilibrium shift, which will make it more difficult to cope with and recover from if you lose it.  It's a possibility that those that do a poor job of prioritizing energy output are those that suffer from extensive depression/suicidal tendencies after a loss.  All in all, such an investment of energy just isn't worth spending on someone/something that may not stick around long term, hence why it's best to be conservative about who/what you love. Of course, that's always easier said than done.    
     
    The only other concept I was toying with today, also related to this subject, is whether or not puberty/reaching reproductive ages has any effect on the amount of “love energy” that teenagers and young adults, or any single person for that matter, invests in finding a mate.  This energy shift may correlate to the increased importance that we place on finding that one particular individual during that limited period of time when most are dating, getting married, etc. Then, as would seem to be the case, once you settle down with someone, your priorities would then be split, most likely focusing on the family that you create with them, and your “love energy” would be distributed amongst multiple things again.  It makes me wonder if your hormones have any effect on “love energy” output during your prime mating years and if there is some kind of chemical conversion that takes place.  It'd be quite interesting if that was the case, as we have an understanding of chemical energy.  It could possibly lead to an understanding of this “love energy” I'm proposing, if a link could be found between the two.  Such an idea requires a much greater understanding of psychology/physiology than I currently have, so this is a concept I'd have to revisit again at a later date to strengthen my argument, but it was too interesting of a thought for me to not mention it.  
     
    Anyways, I think I'm about done. Obviously, everything you just read originated from random thoughts floating around in my head and, thus, is by no means valid.  I just thought it'd be cool to throw my ideas out there.  Any feedback is definitely welcome.      
     
    Stay Smiling, 
     
    Green Flutterby 

     
  2. Hello Mr/Mrs. Flutterby, To start I think this type of topic would be better off in the Spirituality Forum or Pandora's Box as your idea isn't actually science. Just to comment a little on what was posted.  Your whole premise is based on what I bolded so I'll just address that.
     
    I think you'll find those of us in the science sections don't consider changing our views of love to what you call a "physical energy", which is even more abstract than a feeling, without any concrete evidence to back up it up is hard to do. If this "energy" were indeed physical, then it should be able to be identified and quantified but the evidence doesn't support this. It should be noted that the term energy is extremely vague and can't be used to justify peoples random hypotheses.
     
    Love is an abstract feeling that also has a psychological and biological basis.
     
    Studies have already shown that there are biological changes that occur when humans fall in love. I would check out this wiki page for more info:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love
     

Share This Page