This paper proposes a structural interpretation of scientific behavior in physicsand astronomy through what is here called the minimum-energy principle of sci-entific systems. In this paper, energy does not refer to physical energy in the strictthermodynamic sense, but to the total cost required for a researcher or a scientificsystem to choose, maintain, defend, revise, or abandon a theoretical position. Thistotal cost includes cognitive cost, mathematical cost, observational cost, emotionalcost, reputational cost, institutional cost, and identity-preserving cost.The central claim of this paper is that scientific systems do not move directlytoward truth in a pure and frictionless manner. Rather, they approach truththrough energy landscapes shaped by institutions, evaluation systems, availableinstruments, cultural expectations, funding structures, and the risks of falsifica-tion. In physics and astronomy, this structure becomes especially visible becausethe fields require both theoretical creativity and observational verification. Whenobservation is scarce, theory-making may become the lower-energy path. Whenobservation becomes abundant and immediate falsification becomes possible, saferefinement, data production, and mathematically protected speculation may be-come lower-energy paths.This paper further argues that highly mathematical but weakly falsifiable frame-works, such as string theory and multiverse theory, may function as paradoxicallow-energy paths within modern theoretical physics. Although such theories re-quire high mathematical effort, they may reduce falsification risk, reputational risk,and institutional survival risk. In this sense, a theory can be mathematically high-energy while institutionally low-energy.The paper does not argue that minimum-energy behavior is inherently negative.On the contrary, minimum-energy structures make standardization, education, re-producibility, and cumulative science possible. However, if all scientific activityconverges into a single low-risk energy path, science may become stable but stag-nant. Conversely, if all inquiry occurs outside minimum-energy structures, sciencemay dissolve into chaotic and unverifiable speculation. Therefore, a healthy sci-entific system requires both stable low-energy cores and high-energy exploratorymargins.Finally, the author explicitly acknowledges that this paper itself is written fromthe position of an independent researcher. The author’s structural and methodolog-ical approach may also reflect the minimum-energy path available to an independentresearcher who lacks direct access to large instruments, institutional research net-works, and formal observational programs. This acknowledgment is not presentedas a weakness to be hidden, but as part of the epistemic transparency required bythe theory proposed in this pape