vivian maxine » May 6th, 2017, 8:17 am wrote:Biv, I leave it to you to put this where it belongs: here? in Physics? Anywhere.
.
If someone can, I'd wish to know exactly what she means by "Symmetry in nature". I have some notions that are likely "spacey". A real explanation would be much appreciated so I could see if what I am thinking relates.
handmade » May 6th, 2017, 8:21 am wrote:vivian maxine » May 6th, 2017, 8:17 am wrote:Biv, I leave it to you to put this where it belongs: here? in Physics? Anywhere.
.
If someone can, I'd wish to know exactly what she means by "Symmetry in nature". I have some notions that are likely "spacey". A real explanation would be much appreciated so I could see if what I am thinking relates.
Nature balances itself out. Entropy is shared proportionally etc I think that means.
vivian maxine » May 6th, 2017, 8:25 am wrote:handmade » May 6th, 2017, 8:21 am wrote:vivian maxine » May 6th, 2017, 8:17 am wrote:Biv, I leave it to you to put this where it belongs: here? in Physics? Anywhere.
.
If someone can, I'd wish to know exactly what she means by "Symmetry in nature". I have some notions that are likely "spacey". A real explanation would be much appreciated so I could see if what I am thinking relates.
Nature balances itself out. Entropy is shared proportionally etc I think that means.
Oh, thank you. Then, that ties back to her solution for Einstein's problem of conservation "locally" vs "universally"?
Braininvat » May 6th, 2017, 9:37 am wrote:Noether's theorem does not apply to non-conserving systems, e.g. systems that would call for a Rayleigh dissipation function.
Just throwing that out for anyone who wants to go a bit further.
This is also helpful, getting a sense of how symmetry works in physics....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_(physics)
Also this, on Lie Groups....
https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-Lie-Group-in-laymans-terms
vivian maxine » May 6th, 2017, 8:17 am wrote:Biv, I leave it to you to put this where it belongs: here? in Physics? Anywhere.
There are several good physics discussions going on right now. Because of those, I keep asking if this article contributes anything worth reading. As you know, I am certainly in no position to say. I'll describe it as best I can.
The June 2017 issue of Discover magazine has this article by Steve Nadis which starts out as a small biography of mathematician Emmy Nouther. Her story is sad but she was evidently worth calling in when a problem was found in Einstein's theory of "new theory of gravity, special relativity". (Quote) She resolved the issue head-on, showing that energy may not be conserved "locally" --- that is, in an arbitrary small patch of space --- but everything works out when the space is sufficiently large."
From there, the article goes into another theory of Nouther's: "Every 'continuous' symmetry in nature has a corresponding conservation law and vice versa. The article then explains Symmetry, Conservation (conservation law, conservation of momentum, conservation of electric charge), Color Symmetry, the Standard Model (which is very familiar to me but I need to find what its labels are saying) and the Supersymmetry (which shows again the Standard Model with those same labels beside the Standard Model in reverse with no labels.)
Those who know a bit about physics can decide if this is all worth noting. If not, fine. Just thought I'd offer it.
If someone can, I'd wish to know exactly what she means by "Symmetry in nature". I have some notions that are likely "spacey". A real explanation would be much appreciated so I could see if what I am thinking relates.
Gathered from Discover Magazine, June 2017, "The Universe According to Emmy Noether" by Steve Nadis.
Faradave » August 9th, 2017, 12:14 pm wrote:You seem to be ignoring the distinction made between "exact" and "approximate" conservation laws.
socrat44 wrote:Physicists explain one side and nobody explains the other side -- the transformation of the one single quantum particle.
Faradave » August 11th, 2017, 12:05 am wrote:socrat44 wrote:Physicists explain one side and nobody explains the other side -- the transformation of the one single quantum particle.
That's our job! Conservation laws are a great place to start.
The kinetic energy of single particles equates to the potential energy
of a collection of them (such as the pressure of jar of gas).
Rest mass may be considered potential energy.
I personally model this as energy associated with its quantum spin,
because there is real, measureable angular momentum attributed to quantum spin.
It's hard to imagine angular momentum not associated with energy.
We're left to consider what kind of object is spinning and how.
Stephen Hawking wrote: …quantum mechanics tells us that the particles DO NOT HAVE any well-defined axis.
socrat44 wrote:Do we know the geometrical form of quantum particle which allow as to speak about AXIS?
Faradave » August 12th, 2017, 2:44 am wrote:Stephen Hawking wrote: …quantum mechanics tells us that the particles DO NOT HAVE any well-defined axis.socrat44 wrote:Do we know the geometrical form of quantum particle which allow as to speak about AXIS?
Hawking represents the entire QM literature in denying an explicit primary spin axis for fermions, instead relying on an abstract (i.e. made up) "intrinsic" axis. It's possible that they are victims of an unfortunate legacy – a bad set of presumed coordinates, which obscure the quantum spin axis.
I noted above that the table of Exact Conservation Laws itself reveals an asymmetry in that it gives 4D of translation axes and yet only 3D of axes for rotation. Like the QM scientists, it ignores the possibility of a temporal spin axis, without a stated justification. There are two reasons why this might be:
1. Spin around time would be essentially instantaneous, thus violating universal speed limit c at any non-zero radius.
But fundamental fermions are point particles (i.e. have zero radius) so, this restriction does not apply.
2. If time is orthogonal with 3D of space, a temporal spin axis should make no projections on space. Yet quantum spin components are found in every spatial direction (always ±ħ/2).
Things change if simpler coordinates are employed.
Here are equivalent representations of the same algebraic expression in two different geometries.
The interval equation of Special Relativity has an identical algebraic form, again presented in two geometries.
With interval-time coordinates, a temporal spin axis (my "chronaxial spin") would make equal projections in every spatial direction, exactly as observed.
Faradave » 12 Aug 2017, 08:44 wrote:With interval-time coordinates, a temporal spin axis (my "chronaxial spin") would make equal projections in every spatial direction, exactly as observed.
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 6 guests