Timeline for Why can't we define a potential energy for a non-conservative force?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 27, 2018 at 20:05 | comment | added | Bananach | @Michael that is way beyond my physical abilities. Are you sure there is no simple way of saying what you want to say? | |
| Aug 27, 2018 at 19:29 | comment | added | Michael | @Bananach, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect | |
| Aug 26, 2018 at 11:30 | comment | added | Bananach | @Michael do you mean irrotational vector fields are not necessarily conservative in non simply connected domains? Gradient fields are. | |
| Dec 24, 2015 at 17:48 | comment | added | gented | Oh yes, sure, topological defects aside :). | |
| Dec 24, 2015 at 17:42 | comment | added | Michael | Interestingly enough, in non-simply-connected domains even being a gradient of a (locally defined) scalar function does not imply that the force is conservative, as demonstrated in Aharonov-Bohm experiment. So a tiny clarification is needed: the ability to define potential energy for a force is equivalent to that force being conservative in simply connected domains. | |
| Dec 23, 2015 at 17:37 | history | answered | gented | CC BY-SA 3.0 |