Re: Explain the Law of conservation of matter and energy


Bill Hobba wrote:
> <surrealistic-dream@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1135948087.367419.264290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > 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?
>
> Yes - under the contextual meaning of fictitious here - which means it is
> logically equivalent to a symmetry. In saying EM forces for example result
> from gauge symmetry what it is saying is that assuming gauge symmetry
> results in EM forces - not that those forces do not actually exist. This
> view turns symmetry on its head - we do not say forces exist in theories
> that have this magical symmetry - we say this magical symmetry exists hence
> forces occur.
> http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/DBailey/SubAtomic/Lectures/LectF13/Lect13.htm
> 'Requiring local U(1) gauge invariance requires that the particle interact
> with a field. In this case all of electromagnetism can be summed up by
> saying there is a local U(1) gauge invariance of the universe.'
>
> > If so, how do you operationally define a force?
>
> The same as always.

In classical physics and in SR, if a particle is undergoing inertial
motion (operationally verifiable state of motion) that particle is said
to have zero net forces acting on it. (Our frames of reference from
here on will be inertial.) That is then the baseline for determining if
a "real force" acts on a particle: If the particle is not undergoing
inertial motion, it is because it is being acted on by an unballanced
"real force." This is the semantics of "real" -- derived operationally
-- in classical physics and in SR. Now, since an electromagnetic field
is capable of puttting a charged particle in non-inertial motion, by
definition that is because in SR the particle is acted upon by a "real
force." Thus, the electromagnetic force is "real" in this context. I
know this is just a semantic issue, but a theory requires a consistent
meaning to its jargon. In one theory a force can't be both real and
ficticious (nonreal) at the same time.

.

Relevant Pages