Conventional notion of energy and the conservation of energy emerges from discrete description of mass and energy. It assumes that mass exists independent of energy. In addition, the “ability to work” is considered to be energy. The term “work” refers to displacement of an object. Therefore, if an object is moved around and brought back to the original place, no work has been performed on it. By definition, the pathway or the time function being mooted from the description of the process, one has lost track of actual work performed.

In addition, any “work” is also related to “heat.” This notion dates back to Lord Kelvin's notion of universe that in his view was constantly degrading to the point of being “heat dead” eventually. This tactic removes any dissimilarity between sunlight and solar heat from electric light and electrical heating, for instance. It also conflates energy from food with energy, say gasoline.

Core of this cognition has been in measuring blocks. For instance, Btu (British thermal unit) is defined as the amount of heat energy required to increase the temperature of one pound of water by 1 °F, at sea level. This definition assumes and imposes strictly linear property of water. It also conceals the chemical property of water. The hyperbolic extension does not stop here. This “Btu” is then transformed into energy from food in a strictly organic setting.

Conventionally, electricity does the same as the sunlight and New Science provides no basis for distinguishing electric energy from solar energy. This is one of the numerous disconnections between organic and mechanical systems. Interestingly, electricity and electromagnetism are based on the same atomic principle as the one used for describing mass and conservation of mass. Along with the assumption of spherical rigid balls, it is also assumed that each atom as well as subatomic particles are identical. After the discovery of some 69 subatomic particles, it is now commonly known that none of these particles are symmetrical, uniform, spherical, or rigid. However, the assumption of uniformity and identical form still holds, even when it comes to the “fundamental particle,” most recently asserted as Higgs boson. While this notion won Nobel prize in 2013, scientists still do not have an answer to the questions, “If all Higgs Boson are identical and if there is nothing smaller than Higgs Boson, how are these particles moving? Does it mean then, there is certain space that is empty and devoid of anything?” This leads to the placement of Higgs boson as a static object. Static matters cannot impart energy transfer, thereby creating disconnection between mass and energy.

Higgs bosons are also considered to be “uniformly distributed” as well as “highly unstable.” They are contradictory properties by themselves.

More dogmatic assertion involves the notion that photons from a radioactive substance “feel” the electromagnetic force as well as the weak force, but neutrinos only “feel” the weak force. This assertion makes neutrinos less reactive while more mobile within a material system. In order to remedy such an obvious logical gaffe more assertions are made that are equally aphenomenal. As such, it is stated that when a photon is emitted, it is attracted by the electromagnetic force that is generated by the atoms around it. While photons are attracted, neutrinos are considered to be deflected by the same atomic body. The aphenomenal assumption there is that the nucleus and electron are all ubiquitous to the extent that photons would “hit” them, whereas neutrinos would not, even though both types of particles are “mass less.”

Other anomalies and contradictions also exist in terms of energy description. For instance, light is considered to be a collection of photons with finite speed (speed of light being the maximum possible speed by virtue of the assumption of zero mass of photons). This assertion disconnects light from its source, thereby removing the possibility of light pollution or the ability to distinguish between sunlight and artificial light.

It is also inferred that Higgs boson can travel through opaque objects at a speed close to the speed of light (some actually postulated it to be faster than light) whereas light can only travel through “transparent” bodies. This assertion does not appear as an anomaly in conventional analysis because of preexisting assumption that light and mass are discrete from each other.

The atomic model is used to describe mass and chemical reaction. This centuries old model used to assume that atoms are the elemental particles and are solid, spherical, and rigid. At later stage, such properties were invoked to neutron, proton, and electrons. It was hypothesized that certain atoms have loosely attached electrons. An atom that loses electrons has more protons than electrons and is positively charged. An atom that gains electrons has more negative particles and is negatively charged. A “charged” atom is called an “ion.” Depending on the number missing electrons, an ion would be more prone to “bonding” with another element. This line of reasoning helped explain chemical reactions. However, the only way such reaction could be linked to energy is through “heat of reaction.” Typically, this analysis satisfied the need of engineers, whose principal focus was heat. However, this disconnected “light” in general and artificial light in particular from being connected to chemical change. This remains a source of inconsistency in New Science.

In terms, energy generation through radiation, the concept of “unstable isotope” was introduced. The word “isotope” is defined as an atom that has unusual number of neutron. It is called stable isotope when the nucleon is not prone to breaking down. There are only a few stable isotopes recognized today. When an isotope is prone to breaking down spontaneously, it is called “unstable isotope.” It is hypothesized that when unstable isotopes break down into new isotopes, they usually emit alpha, beta, or gamma radiation. The term “radioactivity” is synonymous with the emission of this radiation. This notion has been in existence since the early work of French physicist Henri Becquerel, who observed potassium-uranyl sulfate crystals on a film and concluded that the sun emits X-rays. Becquerel also found that all compounds of uranium and pure uranium behaved the same way. They all emitted what seemed to be X-rays, yet they did not need to be excited first with light or an electron beam. The uranium and its compounds could ionize gases, which permitted the gases to conduct an electric current.

The early work of Becquerel was further advanced by physicists Marie Sklodowska-Curie of Poland and Pierre Curie of France who conducted a series of experiments to determine which other elements and compounds emitted this mysterious radiation. They found that the element thorium behaved much like uranium. But the radiation from pitchblende, a uranium ore, was far greater than it should have been, considering the known percentage of its uranium content. They therefore suspected that the pitchblende contained some other previously undiscovered element. Beginning with a large sample of pitchblende, they employed a series of chemical separation techniques, always discarding the separated fraction, which did not emit the disproportionately high radiation. Eventually, they isolated a new radioactive element, which they called polonium in honor of Marie's home country. This was the beginning of “purification for nuclear energy.”

Four years later, starting with 100 kg of pitchblende, and using similar techniques, they were able to isolate 0.1 g of an even more intensely radioactive substance, which they called radium. After Pierre's accidental traffic death in 1906, Marie was appointed in his place as a professor of physics at the Sorbonne in Paris. She was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1911 for her discovery of polonium and radium. She died in 1934 of leukemia, which was probably caused by overexposure to the radiation involved in her research. However, this connection was not made and until now, the failure to change the premise that separated mass from energy has made it impossible for scientists to find the root of energy pollution as well as cancer.

In the mean time, Ernest Rutherford, 1st Baron Rutherford of Nelson, a New Zealand-born British physicist became prominent for his work on radiation, eventually earning him the title “father of nuclear physics.” His research focus was to measure the “penetrating power” of uranium's mysterious radiation. He discovered that the radiation was made up of three different types of “rays” with very different powers of penetration. The intensity of what he called alpha (α) rays, could be reduced to one-half as much by a very thin (0.005 mm) piece of aluminum foil. A similarly thin piece would cut the intensity by half again as much, to a total intensity of one-fourth; and a third piece would cut the total to one-eighth, etc. Beta (β) ray intensity could be reduced to one-half as much by a 0.5 mm aluminum sheet; and again each additional 0.5 mm sheet would cut the prevailing amount by one-half. In general, the thickness of a specific material required to reduce a certain type of radiation by one-half is called a half-thickness. The half-thickness for gamma (γ) the third type of uranium radiation was found to be 80 mm of aluminum.

Rutherford sealed a thin-walled vial of alpha-emitting radon gas inside a second glass tube. All the air was pumped out of the second outer tube before sealing. Rutherford attempted to ionize any possible remaining gas in the outer tube, and at first he was unsuccessful. However, as time passed, gas accumulated in the second outer tube. This was the beginning of light emission through excitation of ions. Today, this technique is promoted as the most effective lighting of buildings. They are dubbed as “energy savers” and many countries are considering making them mandatory.

This “discovery” of Rutherford became useful in explaining artificial electricity generation. It was postulated that electrons can be made to move from one atom to another, as long as they were kept in a state of instability. When those electrons move between the atoms, a current of electricity is created. The electrons move from one atom to another in a “flow.” One electron is attached and another electron is lost.

Subsequent research in “creating” energy involves various ways to move electrons off of atoms. In another word, creating instability or imbalance became the only means to generate energy. The principal task becomes that of creating a system that generates large numbers of positive atoms and free negative electrons. Since positive atoms have affinity toward negative electrons so they can be balanced, they have a strong attraction for the electrons. The electrons also has an affinity toward the positive atom so there is an overall balance. This principle is the basis for electricity generation.

Even the briefest examination of the narrowness in the focus of the approach taken by New Science to the phenomenon of radiation—whether artificially induced or naturally occurring—uncovers interesting phenomena. Consider carbon.

Carbon is one of the most persistent elements to be found in the atmosphere and soils of the earth. Over time—especially geological periods of time—ordinary C–C bonds and especially CC double bonds seem to have proven particularly resistant to the effects of radiation. This is “not” the case for most other elements connected chemically to such carbon bonds. Most elements apart from the noble gases seem vulnerable to radiation effects at the molecular level.

This particular feature of carbon bonding seems rife with many actual and potential consequences. Nevertheless, partly because there seems to be no consistent explanation afforded by the conventional treatment by New Science applied to sorting out this question, many geological transformations in the earth remain incompletely or incorrectly accounted for.

Before one can examine the science of energy that includes light and heat, one must review the existing theories and analyze their shortcomings. This will follow with proper characterization of energy with fundamentally sound premises.