406 reputation
311
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years, 11 months
seen 1 hour ago

Feb
1
comment Every Relativistic Field Satifies the Klein-Gordon Equation?
What's the definition of a free field? Is it defined to be a field with that Lagrangian density? This is how I've seen it defined. Which would make it a tautology...
Feb
1
asked Every Relativistic Field Satifies the Klein-Gordon Equation?
Jan
3
comment Is conservation of energy a set of principles that is inevitable in any 'possible world'?
You can look up the variational complex, or look at Peter Olver's book "Applicatons of Lie Groups to Differential Equations". It's similar to how you determine if a function is the gradient of a scalar actually. I've written a bit about it, but it's not the best exposition.
Dec
29
comment Is conservation of energy a set of principles that is inevitable in any 'possible world'?
This is something that I see frequently, but I find it a bit disingenuous as presented. Conservation of energy doesn't merely follow from the fact that the laws of physics should have time symmetry, it must further be imposed that the laws of physics come from an action principle. This is highly nontrivial and one needs to know the laws in order to actually verify that this is true. However given Newton's laws it is easily checked that energy is conserved and one needs not invoke Noether's theorem.
Oct
25
awarded  Popular Question
Oct
9
awarded  Autobiographer
Aug
30
comment How was the formula for kinetic energy found, and who found it?
@user17574 There are much much simpler proofs, all of these conserved quantities, momentum, energy, angular momentum could be proved rigorously just from Newton's laws. Also considering the Lagrangian involves the kinetic energy, I don't think this helps.
Jul
18
comment The Hole Argument
Well I'm glad you see what I mean. So then are the two spacetimes distinguishable? I mean, can we tell which one we "live" in? I think part of my confusion arises from the fact that the coordinates don't seem to be defined before finding for the metric.
Jul
18
comment The Hole Argument
But they only mention the coordinate transformation thing later, on page two they seem to be literally considering different metrics on the same manifold. They even write $G(r)$ and $G'(r)$, and since they are using the same letter I can only assume that $r$ represents the same point on the manifold, resulting in two different metrics. Which part of this isn't right?
Jul
18
comment The Hole Argument
I don't understand that, why do you call them the same thing if they are two different things? You seem to have two different metrics on the same manifold, hence should be able to use the same points.
Jul
18
comment The Hole Argument
So take two points $p,p'$ on $M$. Using $g, g'$ you measure two different distances between them, but since they are isometric there is no observable difference in the physics?
Jul
18
revised The Hole Argument
added 53 characters in body
Jul
18
revised The Hole Argument
added 76 characters in body
Jul
18
revised The Hole Argument
added 799 characters in body
Jul
18
comment The Hole Argument
@ACuriousMind I didn't just change the coordinate system, I changed the metric also, ie. if $p$ is a point on the manifold, then we have $g'(p)\ne g(p)$.
Jul
18
comment The Hole Argument
But if $p$ is a point on the manifold, then we have $g'(p)\ne g(p)$.
Jul
18
revised The Hole Argument
added 799 characters in body
Jul
18
asked The Hole Argument
Jul
2
awarded  Curious
Jun
25
comment How do we know that $F = ma$, not $F = k \cdot ma$
@JánLalinský I think the notion may be problematic if you don't define it...how do you measure it without knowing what to measure? In any case, I was in fact talking about inertial mass, and I think it does get at what the second law is about. Inertia is a bodies resistance to movement...this makes that statement precise.