Timeline for Conservation Laws and Symmetry
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Apr 28, 2016 at 2:36 | history | suggested | Wang Yun | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improved formatting
|
| Apr 28, 2016 at 0:56 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 28, 2016 at 2:36 | |||||
| Sep 2, 2015 at 6:11 | vote | accept | Aritra Das | ||
| Aug 31, 2015 at 15:20 | comment | added | Qmechanic♦ | Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/4959/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/21572/2451 and links therein. | |
| Aug 25, 2015 at 14:01 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/636176506646097921 | ||
| Aug 25, 2015 at 8:12 | answer | added | RedPen | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 25, 2015 at 7:09 | comment | added | Selene Routley | The smallest and clearest explanation I know of is here. Meanwhile, a great question (+1): it would be wonderful to come up with a clearer explanation! Baez's explanation shows that there is not as much to it as one would think at first. Do you know about "minimum action" ideas (dynamics that minimize a Lagrangian)? | |
| Aug 25, 2015 at 6:33 | answer | added | Fayis KP | timeline score: 0 | |
| Aug 24, 2015 at 18:42 | comment | added | Aritra Das | @Jim I got inspired by you and have decided to delve into the pure math. Wish me luck. | |
| Aug 24, 2015 at 18:33 | comment | added | Jim | If you go the pure math way and tackle the mathematician's formalism of Noether's theorem, you need to learn a lot more math. If you approach it through QFT and use physics to learn how it works, it's much simpler. How much tensor calculus do you know? Because for me, that was about all that was necessary. Mind you, everything makes more sense in a formal learning environment. | |
| Aug 24, 2015 at 18:27 | comment | added | Aritra Das | @Jim I know some calculus and differential equations and tensor calculus. Still can't find a reasonably easy way to understand it. If you don't mind, after knowing and understanding this, does it seem simpler? | |
| Aug 24, 2015 at 18:22 | comment | added | Jim | I can't think of an example that can be easily explained with simpler math. Every example of Noether's theorem being used has pretty much the same complexity. It's like going to Subway and getting a sandwich. The ingredients may be different, but it's always about the same level of complexity for them to make your sandwich. A good starting point for learning the math would be calculus, differential equations, then tensor calculus.... Actually, there's a lot of math that goes into it. Just learn all the math you come across and don't know. Can't go wrong with that | |
| Aug 24, 2015 at 18:15 | comment | added | Aritra Das | @Jim Okay, so it's basically just math? Could there atleast be an example, that can be understood without the math? Or could it be explained using simpler math? If not, what would be a good starting point for learning the necessary math? | |
| Aug 24, 2015 at 17:57 | comment | added | Jim | Noether's Theorem is a mathematical theorem, so without heavy mathematics, we cannot explain why it says what it says. But we can say that when there is a symmetry wherein a given transformation leaves a system unchanged, Noether's Theorem says that this means we can do some fancy math and always find a quantity whose time derivative vanishes. That is, a quantity that doesn't change with time. Being a mathematical theorem, asking us to explain why it says that without using heavy math is like asking us to explain the Pythagorean theorem without using any math. | |
| Aug 24, 2015 at 16:22 | history | asked | Aritra Das | CC BY-SA 3.0 |