Re: Explain the Law of conservation of matter and energy


<surrealistic-dream@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1136041210.300438.118040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 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.)

>From the definition of force.

> That is then the baseline for determining if
> a "real force" acts on a particle:

Not true. You adjective 'real' has changed everything. For example in GR
fictitious forces appear in accelerated frames - no one denies that but that
are not 'real' because they can be transformed away by going to anther
coordinate state. One of the central lesions of GR is we only consider what
is invariant. They are real in that they can be measured in that coordinate
system - they are not real in that they are simply an artifact of that
coordinate system. The same with the force of EM - it real in that it can
be measured. But it is not real in the sense it depends on something more
fundamental - gauge symmetry. It all has to do with context.

> 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" --

That is your definition of real - before foisting it onto the rest of us as
gospel please obtain the agreement of physicists. Until then it is simply
your semantics just like my discussion on real above is my semantics. I
however suggest my usage is much closer to how physicists use the term than
you do ie for the idea there is an objective reality intendment of
'coordinate' systems.

> 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,

Correct - which is why it is irrelevant to the physics - but vital to
understanding what is written. When physicists say that forces are not
'real' and symmetries are it is a point of view they are taking. You may
not like the way they use words like real to express that viewpoint - but
once you understand what is meant by it then the evidence is it is true.

> but a theory requires a consistent meaning to its jargon.

Sure. But rather than you decide the meaning of that jargon glean it by
reading what physicists say and understanding its context. And if that
fails do a post asking for clarification - not asserting This is the
semantics of "real".'

> In one theory a force can't be both real and
> ficticious (nonreal) at the same time.

It can depending on context.

Bill


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Check the facts and judge
    ... if one applies complex Fourier transform. ... symmetry, ... representation in complex domain is likewise physically correct. ... physicists knew: ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Check the facts and judge
    ... if one applies complex Fourier transform. ... symmetry, ... representation in complex domain is likewise physically correct. ... physicists knew: ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Fermilab and symmetry breaking
    ... physicists have been guided in their quest for the ... The principle of symmetry breaking is now embedded in all of modern ... particle physics. ... only three kinds of quarks were known: ...
    (rec.org.mensa)
  • Re: Fermilab and symmetry breaking
    ... physicists have been guided in their quest for the ... The principle of symmetry breaking is now embedded in all of modern ... particle physics. ... only three kinds of quarks were known: ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The 2008 Nobel Prize in Physics.
    ... physicists have been guided in their quest for the ... The principle of symmetry breaking is now embedded in all of modern ... particle physics. ... only three kinds of quarks were known: ...
    (sci.math)