-3
$\begingroup$

I am a mathematician and I asked this question briefly and my question became closed, may be - I don't know - because physicists don't used to apply the method of "proof by contradiction". This is a very powerful method in many aspects and could give new intuition.

We know for sure that total momentum of every closed physical system is conserved (for simplicity take classical physics).

Noether's theorem says this conservation $(q)$ is result of this: every physical experiment is the same when we only translate our lab is space $(p)$.

So we have a inference like this: $$p \Rightarrow q$$ Proof by contradiction uses the logical fact this result is exactly the following: $$\sim p \quad \Rightarrow \quad \sim q.$$ Now let we want to prove conservation of momentum in every closed system. Let's the result is false, that is "SUPPOSE" there is a system by non-conservative momentum. Then to Noether's theorem be true we find "THERE IS" a physical experiment which alters by only spatial translation.

Could you design such an experiment explicitly? (of course by supposing that there is a system with non-conservative momentum. this is just a logical assumption and there is not such a thing in the real world.)

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ There are many systems with non-conservative momentum. Indeed, conservation of momentum only holds in inertial frames of reference, which are frames undergoing acceleration. The Earth is such a frame since it rotates, but the effect is negligible in most laboratory setups. The effect does however contribute when considering Earth-sized systems such as the atmosphere, where the Coriolis force plays a significant role in the formation of global wind currents. $\endgroup$
    – paulina
    Commented Jul 4 at 17:13
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In physics, we don't know anything for sure. We have models that work very well, but we have no true axioms. What Nature gives us is phenomena, not axioms. "Theorems" of physics are not unquestionable: they are merely part of mathematical models. A mathematical model maps the phenomena to mathematical objects, but the correspondence is never perfect. Mathematical objects are not real: there are, for example, no ideal circles in reality. $\endgroup$
    – John Doty
    Commented Jul 4 at 17:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think you got the logic wrong: $(a \Rightarrow b) \Leftrightarrow (\bar b \Rightarrow \bar a)$. What you wrote is wrong: "If it rains I take the umbrella with me" doesn't imply "if it doesn't rain I don't take the umbrella with me". $\endgroup$
    – HomoVafer
    Commented Jul 4 at 20:08
  • $\begingroup$ You can reformulate Noether's theorem contrapositively, and the proof will be logically equivalent to the usual version. The statement would be something like "if there is not a conserved momentum, then the Lagrangian does not have translation invariance." The most straightforward proof would be the usual proof of Noether's theorem, showing every Lagrangian system with translation invariance has a conserved momentum. It's also worth considering the inverse of Noether's theorem; following the usual argument will show while the usual momentum is not conserved without translation invariance. $\endgroup$
    – Andrew
    Commented Jul 4 at 23:36

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

Noether’s theorem is a mathematical theorem. It connects conservation laws to the properties of Lagrangian functionals. If these properties are contradicted by experiment then this means that a physically inadequate Lagrangian was used.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.