Timeline for Connection between Noether's Theorem and classical definitions of energy / momentum
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2018 at 2:50 | history | edited | Aman pawar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 29 characters in body
|
| Sep 22, 2018 at 2:49 | comment | added | Aman pawar | @AaronStevens thank you for the advice. But i already edited my answer to cover that part. Also, one of the reason for the confusion of "claim" arises because of your 2nd comment. At first this is my bad. And for that i have awarded 2 down votes! | |
| Sep 22, 2018 at 2:14 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | @Amanpawar That is fine. This is what the OP is wondering about. He noticed some similarities and is wondering if there is any deeper meanings or connections. The OP is not making any claims; there is nothing to be right or wrong about. If you think there is not any connection then just say that and why you think so. No need to say anything beyond this. | |
| Sep 22, 2018 at 2:10 | history | edited | Aman pawar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
I have edited my answer to explain in better language. And also i have added some informations to clarify the doubts further.
|
| Sep 22, 2018 at 1:59 | comment | added | Aman pawar | @TrevorKafka with the reason above, just because you have any such equations dose't mean you have a physical correspondences. My claim is that these correspondences are having no physical interpretations. | |
| Sep 22, 2018 at 1:41 | comment | added | Trevor Kafka | 1) So, where is the error? You still haven't identified an error. 2) Sounds correct to me! Not sure what your disagreement is here. | |
| Sep 22, 2018 at 1:35 | comment | added | Aman pawar | @TrevorKafka 1)The equations given above in the question, gives change in kinetic energy and change in 3-momentum. On the other hand, Noether theorem gives us absolute conserved charges corresponding to the symmetries. 2) Its Div(Q) =0, which ensures that Q is conserved and also if Q is conserved, from converse Noether theorem, it must have a associated symmetry. | |
| Sep 22, 2018 at 1:15 | vote | accept | Trevor Kafka | ||
| Sep 22, 2018 at 1:15 | |||||
| Sep 22, 2018 at 1:15 | vote | accept | Trevor Kafka | ||
| Sep 22, 2018 at 1:15 | |||||
| Sep 22, 2018 at 1:13 | comment | added | Trevor Kafka | 1) could you please point out where you see an error? 2) Conservation laws have everything to do with changes. Whenever ∆Q=0, we say the quantity Q is conserved. | |
| Sep 22, 2018 at 1:08 | comment | added | Aman pawar | @AaronStevens Just go with each steps more physically, then you will realize that making such a correspondences directly from a pair of different equations which are looking similar is very nonsensical approach in physics. | |
| Sep 22, 2018 at 1:01 | history | edited | Aman pawar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
I have edited my answer to explain in better language.
|
| Sep 22, 2018 at 0:42 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | Thank you for the reply. I still don't think his claims are nonsensical. Perhaps we are using different definitions of the word. To me saying something is nonsensical means that it does not make sense. This is independent of its correctness. The OP has layed out their reasoning and there is nothing that does not make sense. You might disagree, but the line of reasoning is easy to follow and makes sense. | |
| Sep 22, 2018 at 0:34 | comment | added | Aman pawar | @AaronStevens For you, i have added some reasons to my answer. or if you have any objection, please write your own answer in the answer section. thank you! | |
| Sep 22, 2018 at 0:31 | history | edited | Aman pawar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
i have added more reasons
|
| Sep 22, 2018 at 0:24 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | I wouldn't say the correspondences are nonsensical. They make sense, even if you don't think they are at the same level as Noether's theorem. | |
| Sep 22, 2018 at 0:19 | history | answered | Aman pawar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |