Timeline for Is *Conservation of Distinction* a true conservation law in mainstream physics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 24, 2023 at 14:34 | comment | added | MattHusz | I'm not sure if anyone gave a precise reference for this. One place where he discusses it is in his theoretical minimum lecture series on quantum mechanics. When he refers to "conversation of distinctions", he is indeed referring to the notion that time evolution operators (which are unitary), preserve orthogonality of quantum states. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 0:09 | answer | added | Mozibur Ullah | timeline score: -1 | |
| May 2, 2018 at 23:59 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | Please do. Given the relevance of information to probability and probability with unitarity; the conservation of information seems a lot more plausible. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 23:35 | comment | added | octonion | @docscience Conservation of the inner product of quantum states (which determines whether they are orthogonal) is a direct consequence of the unitarity of the time evolution operator. I think knzhou is right that this "conservation of distinction" is just a way to point out a feature of unitarity that doesn't sound so mathematical. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 23:30 | comment | added | docscience | @MoziburUllah sorry dont have the book with me now, but can follow up with that in about 3 - 4 hours. Susskind mentions a 'minus 1' law in classical mechanics - the conservation of information. And if I recall relates that to unitarity in quantum mechanics. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 23:24 | comment | added | docscience | @probably_someone - re Heylighen, no. I came across some of his work through Google search to research the topic. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 23:22 | comment | added | docscience | @octonion I'm still trying to understand myself. I believe it's the linear independence of quantum states - that this is conserved? | |
| May 2, 2018 at 23:21 | comment | added | probably_someone | Does Susskind reference Heylighen's work specifically when he mentions conservation of distinction? It's possible that the two uses of the term are actually referring to two unrelated concepts. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 23:21 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | Do you have a link to this, as I've never heard of it? If it's in Susskinds book, it might be worthwhile to quote the relevant paragraph to give some context. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 23:19 | comment | added | docscience | @probably_someone Susskind mentions it it in his book "Quantum Mechanics, The Theoretical Minimum" | |
| May 2, 2018 at 23:09 | comment | added | knzhou | From what you say, it appears to be an alternate name for unitarity which is easier for the layperson to understand. Nothing much more. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 23:07 | comment | added | octonion | Could you summarize in your question what the "conservation of distinction" is? I'd imagine many other people like me are familiar with unitarity but not this phrase. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 23:04 | comment | added | probably_someone | Where did Susskind write about this? | |
| May 2, 2018 at 22:59 | history | asked | docscience | CC BY-SA 4.0 |