This is an interesting question about the mathematical framework underlying energy conservation and energetics. Let me think through this carefully.
[beginning of "thinking about it" section]
The user is asking about:
This touches on several deep areas of physics and mathematics:
Thermodynamics - This is probably the most direct answer. It's fundamentally about energy transformations and conservation (first law), entropy (second law), etc. Classical thermodynamics was developed precisely to understand energy flows.
Analytical Mechanics / Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics - This provides the mathematical framework for understanding conservation laws, including energy conservation. Noether's theorem connects symmetries to conservation laws.
Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics - Studies energy flows in systems away from equilibrium, which seems closer to what they mean by "flow of energy between various representations."
Energetics as a historical discipline - There was actually a school of thought called "energetics" in the late 19th/early 20th century (associated with Ostwald, Mach, etc.) that tried to make energy the fundamental concept of all physics. It was largely superseded by atomic theory but had philosophical influence.
Noether's Theorem - This is the key mathematical result showing that energy conservation follows from time-translation symmetry. This is probably the "abstract mathematics" they're looking for.
Information Theory / Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics - Modern approaches to energy flow and information.
Dynamical Systems Theory - Where you study energy-like quantities (Lyapunov functions) in abstract systems.
I should note I don't need web search for this - these are well-established scientific concepts and frameworks that are part of fundamental physics knowledge. However, let me be careful not to hallucinate specific details about current research or obscure facts.
Let me structure my response around:
I can answer this from established physics
knowledge without needing tools, as these are
foundational concepts.
[end of "thinking about it" section]
[beginning of response]
This is a profound question that touches on some of the deepest connections between physics and mathematics. There are several interconnected disciplines you should explore:
Classical thermodynamics is the most direct scientific discipline addressing your concerns. The first law formalizes energy conservation, while the second law governs the direction of energy transformations. However, nonequilibrium thermodynamics comes closer to what you describe—studying how energy actually flows between forms in real, dynamic systems rather than just comparing initial and final states.
The abstract mathematics descending from energy conservation has several layers:
This is arguably the most elegant connection. Emmy Noether proved that every continuous symmetry corresponds to a conservation law. Energy conservation specifically follows from time-translation invariance—the fact that physical laws don't change over time. This reveals that conservation isn't just empirical; it's geometrically necessary given certain spacetime symmetries.
These formulations treat energy (or related quantities like action) as the central organizing principle. The Hamiltonian H represents total energy, and Hamilton's equations describe how system states evolve while preserving energy structure. This framework extends naturally into quantum mechanics, field theory, and statistical mechanics.
The mathematical language underpinning Hamiltonian mechanics. Energy-preserving transformations form symplectomorphisms, and this geometry captures the phase space structure where energy flows are tracked.
Interestingly, there was a movement literally called "energetics" in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Wilhelm Ostwald, Ernst Mach, among others). They attempted to make energy the fundamental ontological category of physics, reducing matter to energy configurations. This program was largely abandoned with the success of atomic theory, but it anticipated modern field-theoretic thinking.
Several contemporary frameworks extend this thinking:
If you want to pursue the abstract mathematics:
The beauty here is that the "framework holding energy to be conserved" turns out to be deeply connected to spacetime structure itself—making this question simultaneously about physics, geometry, and the nature of physical law.
Would you like me to elaborate on any of these particular directions?