Re: Explain the Law of conservation of matter and energy


Bill Hobba wrote:
> <surrealistic-dream@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1135868798.093821.106940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Bill Hobba wrote:
> >> "LameDuck" <Drifta12@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:1135824448.376782.19170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Can you give me an outline of how I should order it my essay. Like what
> >> > I should talk about first and what I should talk about last
> >> >
> >> > Also can you give me something easier that a high school sophmore might
> >> > understand.
> >> >
> >> > But thanx for your reply.
> >>
> >> Check out
> >> http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00968.htm
> >>
> >> Post your email address and I can send you a paper explaining it in the
> >> context of the other conservation laws such a conservation of momentum.
> >> Basically conservation of energy is a tautological statement about a
> >> systems
> >> time symmetry.
> >
> > Bill, are you saying that the law of conservation of energy has no
> > physical content?
>
> No - its physical content lies in the fact for a reason we do not understand
> yet all fundamental theories are expressible as a PLA or if you use QM as a
> starting point the existence of gauge transformations. That is the very
> important discovery of Noether which basically says symmetries in the
> lagrangain is the same as conservation laws and conversely. For example a
> mathematical analysis of EM shows it is based on gauge symmetry of its
> lagrangain. The theorem implies that is equivalent to a conservation law -
> in this case it is conservation of charge. Thus at rock bottom EM is a
> theory about charge conservation. I have a paper explaining all this if you
> post your email I can send it to you. It basically expands on the
> following:
> http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html

In the power point presentation in the link you gave it says:
"Electromagnetic and nuclear forces are fictions introduced to preserve
local gauge invariance." Do you agree with this claim of the fictitious
nature of these forces? If so, how do you operationally define a force?

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast