The h Bar - 2019-09-12 (page 1 of 3)

« first day (3234 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1699 days later) »

12:00 AM

These are eigenfunctions of Laplacian on the hyperbolas (so-called conal functions) and the Mma code produces unexpected oscillations at near some otherwise unremarkable points... I m looking for alternates to Mma...

7 hours later…

7:22 AM

@ZeroTheHero currently kind of on hold to see exactly what parameter ranges we will care about

It's likely that we will be close enough to the Laguerre case that we can use those solutions as seeds without any instabilities arising

Though as always that last bit remains to be seen

It also seems that we are partially shifting our attention back to the Bessel case, a flat coaxial waveguide (of physics.stackexchange.com/questions/371031 'fame'), but now with a finite confining potential on both sides

Which, as you can imagine, is thrilling news. What better ways to spend one's time than solving the wavefunction matching equations from a Beesel J + Y combination to a Bessel K and a Bessel I on either side?

With the added challenge that it's all technical challenge with no real intellectual advance but it's still (only just) niche enough that there are no pre-built solutions 😒

@rob deleted posts are definitely going to be a challenge.

I can see that they're there but I don't think I can get at their scores or tags

I can get the absolute number of open, upvoted hw posts, but it's unlikely that SEDE will provide data on the fraction of hw-tagged posts those represent

7:58 AM

morgen

"In special relativity the possibility of synchronizing distant clocks so as to obtaina global coordinate time was proved by Weyl [15] in a fundamental and unfor-tunately overlooked proof."

Time to look up Herr Weyl

arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0211091.pdf

modern version here

Novalium Company

8:13 AM

Welcome to the Hotel California.

Such a lovely place...

user image

Thinking aboot it

The Reichenbach synchronization even in curved spacetime is such that the two points synchronized should be spacelike-separated

At least assuming global hyperbolicity, I think

Therefore I think it should always give us a time function

Since $t_1$ is on $\partial J^-(t)$ and $t_2$ is on $\partial J^+(t)$

Should be, anyway

I think if two points are linked by a null geodesic they should be in each other's lighcone given global hyperbolicity

8:35 AM

I think that might be theorem 3.9 of Minguzzi-Sanchez

"In any causal spacetime, $x \to^{(\leq)} y \leftrightarrow x \to y$"

Wait no

That theorem I'm stating is wrong!

Counterexample is Minkowski cylinder $\mathbb{R} \times S$

But I think it's correct if the spacetime is topologically trivial

9:21 AM

0

Q: In the most trivial spacetimes, is the existence of a null geodesic equivalent to horismos relations?

Take a globally hyperbolic topologically trivial spacetime $M \cong \mathbb{R} \times \Sigma$, $\Sigma \cong \mathbb{R}^{(n-1)}$. Given $p, q \in M$, such that there exists a future-directed null geodesic $\ell$ between $p$ and $q$, is this equivalent to the condition that $p \nearrow q$, ie $p \...

general-relativity differential-geometry topology causality

Help me, save me

9:39 AM

Oh apparently if a globally hyperbolic spacetime is simply connected, it is geodesically connected

could b useful

though that's not too helpful

Hm, I think all I need are geodesic completeness and geodesic connectedness

Oh apparently it's not even true

bother

10:19 AM

Qmechanic has been editing some old questions of mine? (Not that I have a problem)

I was wondering if it was something of a common occurrence?

Like I feel he might be seeing my question history specifically (got 3 edit notifications quite quickly)

1 hour later…

11:32 AM

@MoreAnonymous Qmechanic profile > Activity > All Actions > Revisions

See also All Users > Editors > All time for a comparison of edit activity between Qmechanic and others

@MoreAnonymous this is rather unlikely, I would think

though maybe not implausible

you'd have to ask @Qmechanic to be sure

in any case, if it's true, then it's extremely unlikely that it's you specifically (as opposed to a regular practice)

and, more generally:

62

Q: In praise of "... and links therein"

We've all seen them: short comments saying Related: http://physics.stackexchange.com/..., and links therein. Also, we've all seen bunches of useful links to closely-related questions on the Linked sidebar over on the right, which are a very useful way to navigate the site. Also, you know what...

discussion moderators users

oooh, speaking of

happy 50,000th tag edit to @Qmechanic

9

If spacetime do have some kind of frame rate, it will mean the poncaire transformations are somehow, discrete in time

and time will be quantised

which... I don't think that the question of the quantisation of time has a conclusion yet

Actually I wonder...

Since we knew how nonlinear optics can knot light in all sorts of ways to the point that torus like momentum (I forgot the actual name of that term in the twisted light article) can be observed, I wonder if the extent of knotting place a limit on how discrete spacetime can go

11:52 AM

Does meta update your rep slowly? I got rep 178 in phys stackexchange but 173 in meta

Despite refreshing

@MoreAnonymous : Two of your recent questions are very similar, so I went back to see if this was a pattern.

Are you talking about many worlds :P

haha I'll take it as a compliment that my page was visited by you :P

@Qmechanic you seem to edit alot of people's stuff how did you connect one many world post of mine to another? Do you have a cool algorithm ?

(like thats amazing memory)

Also I hope there's no rule from quoting a person in the chat for a question:

0

Q: Does the Copenhagen interpretation allow one to bypass a derivation's objection?

Background and Question So I ask this question: Validity of the derivation of time-energy uncertainty principle? Where I'm thinking about joshphysics's answer: What is $\Delta t$ in the time-energy uncertainty principle? And the gist of what I get is (from the answers and the chatroom) within ...

quantum-mechanics heisenberg-uncertainty-principle quantum-interpretations wavefunction-collapse quantum-measurement

But to be fair I didn't wanna misrepresent bolbteppa's views

12:22 PM

@MoreAnonymous Well, there's no rule (AFAIK), but generally it is considered courtesy to ask the author first before migrating stuff from chat to the main site. That's because we tend to follow higher stricter standards when writing answers (or questions) on the main site, compared to informal discussions in chat.

@Secret It's hard to reconcile a frame rate with the relativity of simultaneity. My frames are not your frames, they're Lorentz transformed.

I don't see how frame rate cannot be specific to the frames, and hence a lorentz like transformation can move one frame and its frame rate to another

We already have time dilation, thus frame rate is not very far fetched a step to take

I am not sure, though, how the notion of frame rate will be related to coordinate time though

like frames per second wrt what

How to keep the constancy of the speed of light may be harder if frame rate is not some monotonic function of time, though

@Secret Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point (or vice versa). There isn't a single universal set of time slices. Stuff that occurs in one of my time frames is by definition simultaneous in my reference frame, but that one time slice of mine will intersect a bunch of your time slices if we have any nonzero relative velocity.

Sorry about the triple ping. Stupid autocorrect...

Well I am thinking about something like:

user image

Oh, ok. So was I. Focusing on time dilation makes it seem like that (if we have a relative speed) the only issue is that I think your frame rate is slower than mine, and vice versa. But it's worse than that, because space & time are combined.

As you have said, there are no universal time slides (and it is even worse for some crazy spacetimes where you cannot even foilate spacetimes into hyperspace slides like these). Notice how the rate of blinking as the time slide of one of the moving observers scroll past A B C in that order. I am suspecting time dilation will have already govern that rate of blinking

It is less clear, what framerate means. If we think of it like the FPS in games, it means spacetime itself somehow comes in slides like movies, so... are we end up having another time coordinate?

12:37 PM

In reply to that 1st paragraph: Well, sure. That's what the Lorentz transformation equations tell you.

I guess, maybe I should ask you, what do you think framerate means since we already have space and time meshed together by the speed of light, and hence time and space are already relative between observers?

@Secret I'm just attempting to use the most naive idea of a framerate, that I think the OP of that question is using. Presumably they know about time dilation, but they don't realise that space & time get kind of mixed together.

yeah, if I interpret the OP correctly, he is arguing that spacetime has a framerate of c, the speed of light. Since speed of light is the only invariant speed in relativity, to assign a framerate to that will be like saying there is some extra time coordinate which is invariant to lorentz transformation. Otherwise I don't know how you can have a notion of framerate that is not already redundant due to time dilation and length contraction should capture most of the context of signal speeds

Problem of two time physics is that most dynamics become unpredictable due to hyperbolic solutions to equations of motion so presumably the OP have not thought of that direction

"These hyperplanes are called horizontal hyperplanes, and in the language of gauge theories they define a connection: the simultaneity connection[7]. If this connection is integrable, i.e. its curvature vanishes, the distribution of horizontal hyperplanes is integrable and gives rise to a spacetime foliation through spacelike hypersurfaces: the hypersurfaces of simultaneity."

@Secret If you start adding time dimensions like that, you have to keep adding them, so you get an infinite number of them. That's... a little messy. ;) But an English philosopher investigated it mid last century. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Experiment_with_Time I think you'd enjoy that book. It was quite popular in certain circles, for several decades.

12:49 PM

Help

I can't escape fiber bundles

I'm literally doing experimental GR and it's still fiber bundles

hmm interesting, yeah it does sounds quite similar to this naive framerate idea

Don't complain. Fibre's good for you. ;)

That philosophy of time had fell out of fashion though, given how people just focus on illusion camp, emergent camp, block universe, growing block and presentism

I'm eating a lot of roughage

"There are other rooms, with 102 users currently talking in 69 rooms."

Nice

Anyway, assuming a naive framerate model can avoid the complications of time travel and two time dynamics (by having that other dimension to not be time, but some other physical parameter and its associated symmetry group), then we can end up with an interesting cosmology that can predict variable speed of light in different regions of the universe. I am however not ready to investigate on that yet, as there are still other things in logic I tried to make sense

12:54 PM

@Secret Yeah, philosophies of time that are ignorant of relativity haven't fared too well. :)

There's already a lattice model of closed timelike curves and it is also bad

CTCs are bad

In GR, light is allowed to appear to have different speeds, at a distance (Shapiro time delay), but every local observer always measures it to be c.

@PM2Ring Well in SR too, if you're allowed arbitrary coordinates :p

@Slereah Look what they did to Gödel.

Also Tipler

user image

12:58 PM

Good point.

Yup and this shapiro delay is something that one of the recent quantum gravity experiment proposal try to account for by swapping the masses to ensure the delay balances out

h e l p

I wanted to do something fun and easy and bam

Straight back to fiber bundles

Now you know why John Baez migrated to n-category land.

that's what trying to do rigorous physics does to you

it drives you to category theory (ie insanity)

You keep running into the same structures, no matter how you transform the problem, so you get caught up studying the "backstage" mechanisms underlying the isomorphisms.

1:04 PM

All is one (in fiber bundles)

I had to look this up because I'm not 100% sure that the Einstein simultaneity convention can be defined for arbitrary spacetimes

Since for a light clock in a causal spacetime, points between $t_1$ and $t_2$ on the light clock aren't necessarily spacelike-separated from the event

I have proven that some do

There's a subset of $\gamma([t_1, t_2])$ that is spacelike separated from the event you're trying to synchronize

But saying that every event is means that $t_1$ and $t_2$ are on the event's light cone, which isn't necessarily true

Hey Any QFT experts here?

I'm not but shoot

This is seeriously bugging me

Ive done LSZ

QFT is a special case of quantum theory, but with a more systematic way of constructing observables. The same postulates governing measurement in quantum theory are also present in QFT, and they're not "hidden" at all. Not even sure what "hidden" would mean. Maybe the author is thinking of QFT in terms of scattering (as though that were its only application) or even perturbation theory. That view of QFT has been the source of all kinds of strange statements, and it does indeed "hide" some things that would otherwise be pretty obvious. — Chiral Anomaly 34 mins ago

whoops

1

Q: How is "the collapse postulate is also present in QFT, only hidden inside the LSZ formula?"

Background So I am reading the following here (Blog: Not Even Wrong, Blog post: Not So Spooky Action at a Distance, Commenter: vmarko) "The collapse postulate is also present in QFT, only hidden inside the LSZ formula. But if you are against using the collapse postulate to describe measureme...

quantum-mechanics quantum-field-theory wavefunction-collapse s-matrix-theory quantum-measurement

Yea thats what I wanna ask ^

I'm guessing it's because almost always in QFT, you're dealing with asymptotic states?

So you just prepare the event at $t = -\infty$ and measure it at $t = \infty$

But that's not rly true yeah

Really ??? Thats all he meant??? :/

1:10 PM

you can measure the system ay any time, including non-scattering experiments

I don't know!

Hmm ... Atleast it's worth a question

Isn't Woit poorly considered by our lord and saviour Lubos Motl

I wouldn't trust him

Woit is our lord and saviour Lubos is the stringy/(strange) one!

To be fair Woit seems to know more about Lubos on the finer points of string theory and its on the internet!!

user image

AHHHHH

My eyes

Im gonna get cancer

we need special glasses for the eclipse dude

1:17 PM

"The coordinates obtained following the Einstein convention, even for events far away from the world-line, are known as Marzke-Wheeler coordinates"

Jesus Christ

There's no bottom to general relativity

I have literally never heard about this

and me thinking I had a fresh new idea

Here's a joke:
What happen's in GR when the Lubos star (your meme) collpases into a blackhole?

do tell

Time will stop! but probably due to euphoria

not very good

Hmm .. gotta get better at those punchlines

1:24 PM

I have by the way also never heard of that Marzke-Wheeler book

and apparently neither has Libgen

You know who talks about it, though?

books.google.fr/…

MTW, of course

As I always say, all of GR is solved in MTW

but nobody has managed to read it all so far

From what I'm reading I highly suspect that the Einstein convention only works locally

but let's find out

amazon.co.uk/Gravitation-Relativity-Hong-Yee-Hoffmann-William/…

Jesus Christ

That's an obscure book

seems cheap though at least

hii everybody! I got a doubt on coma aberration...Can anybody please help?

1:49 PM

@user8718165 perhaps in this chatroom someone might respond (?)

https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/54160/problem-solving-strategies

Oh goood

Light clocks are holonomies of the simultaneity bundle

everything is bad

@MoreAnonymous okay...thank you :)

2:20 PM

@Slereah I dont understand your question

Which and also I probably got the answer by now

2:36 PM

@RyanUnger Oy

Don't bring your bundles into the real measurable world...

@EmilioPisanty Hello! could you please help me with a doubt? I won't take much time.

@bolbteppa my Copenhagenist friend!

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/502477/noethers-theorem-and-the-measurement-in-copenhagen

The measuring apparatus and quantum system can be considered as a whole quantum system for which Noether etc applies

@bolbteppa I didn't do it dammit

It's all Minguzzi's fault

arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0204063.pdf

just look at this madness

2:47 PM

Wait last time you said apparatus was a quasi-classical system

This idea that the rules of QM somehow break during measurement is ridiculous, I think the buzzword about non-unitarity during measurement is behind all this

Right but the whole thing is governed by QM still

I was of the opinion

Wait waahhhhh

I feel soon we will be talking about Wigner's friend

Anyway how do you explain a measurement if everything is unitary?

I mean the Quantum Information people use non-unitary for precisely that reason?

It's unitary if you include the measuring apparatus

So if everything is unitary why does the same intial configuration have different final configurations?

It doesn't.

You're not measuring the wavefunction

the wavefunction evolves uniquely

2:52 PM

So in the experiment of the double slit

But you're not measuring the wavefunction but observables

If I have electron 1 hit the sreen on the left and again go back in time and electron 1 hits it one right this time

And somehow Noether's theorem still holds ...

= me very confused

zarm.uni-bremen.de/fileadmin/user_upload/space_science/…

Gemetry

Here is measurement: we begin with a quantum system described by a normalized wave function $\Psi(x)$ and an apparatus described by a normalized quasi-classical wave function $\Phi_n(y)$ where $n$ is the n'th possible 'reading' of the apparatus. Before we take any reading the whole system is described by a wave function $\psi(x,y) = \Psi(x) \Phi_0(y)$ (where we know the $\Phi_0(y)$ reading) which is separable because the apparatus and quantum system are independent.

I have never heard of gemetry

2:54 PM

After measuring, i.e. as the wave function of the combined system evolves under the Schrodinger equation for this total system, we find a new wave function which is no longer a product of wave functions at first glance, however we can expand it in a basis of states of the apparatus $\sum_n A_n(x) \Phi_n(y)$ and NOW because the apparatus is quasi-classical we know it can only be in one of the $\Phi_n(y)$ states whose eigenvalue is the measurement,

so we have found a new function $A_n(x)$ which is proportional to the true wave function of the quantum system after measurement (but it's not correctly normalized since it has to be normalized only for the total system wave function), so you see how the classical nature of the apparatus 'collapses' the sum onto only one of the possibilities, where is the magic here...

Waaaaitttt Are u saying the "escape route" is the instrument is in different initial configurations if I try doing this experiment?

well yes

quite obviously

Actually Everett's thesis on QM is quite a good introduction to this whole problem

I'm saying, if you did that whole scenario above with two quantum systems, the 'collapse' of that sum would never occur and we would never be able to measure, it is the inherent classical nature of the apparatus and the fact we know it has to have a measured value that we know it can only be in one of those eigenstates and so the sum 'collapses'

www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/manyworlds/pdf/dissertation.pdf

I recommend reading it

This is why QM inherently depends on classical mechanics on a practical level, otherwise we have no theory

2:57 PM

Whatever you may think of MWI it's a good introduction to measurements in QM

Or rather, we have a math game with no way to experimentally test the rules

He describes how you can describe measuring apparatus as subspaces of the Hilbert space

I ask, where is the magic in what I described

With the data obtained forming a basis for that Hilbert space

ie you can split the Hilbert space into wavefunctions where the machine reads a certain value

But

@bolbteppa where is the experimentalist going wrong then? You still have to explain why can't he replicate the experiment ...Please dont say clumsy hands

2:59 PM

Much like the simultaneity bundle and its light clock holonomies

This is too complicated to use in everyday experiments

Here it is the existence of classical mechanics that causes 'instantaneous wave-function collapse' from $\sum_n A_n(x) \Phi_n(y)$ to some $A_m(x) \Phi_m(y)$

@bolbteppa But @bolbteppa

A third observer may consider you as in that superposition!

If we didn't have a classical experimenter, after the experiment goes on we would still only have a sum $\sum_n A_n(x) \Phi_n(y)$ and no collapse and so no way to do experiments

Maybe you are in quantum superposition

RIGHT NOW

Aaaaaah

@Slereah the real question is how many?

3:01 PM

The real question is, why all the woo in discussions of this topic!

@MoreAnonymous Contextuality, alas

The question doesn't make much sense without splitting things into system

I wish I had read more about the interpretations of QM ... I was always of the opinion they were unnecessary baggage .... :/

The truth of the matter is that all of this is fairly interesting but you're not going to go very far without getting into some heavy math

which I doubt u will

Which of the eigenstates is it going to collapse onto, more likely the one with more probability... How do we know which has what probability, Schrodinger equation which respects the symmetries and boundary conditions of that system tells us!

People want to know the mysteries of the universe but nobody wants to read about orthomodular lattices or quantum probabilities

3:04 PM

@MoreAnonymous you tell me why we need to talk about non-unitary operators in being able to say that after measurement we can expand the total wave function in a basis of apparatus eigenstates and then use the classical nature of the apparatus to realize this expansion is actually only one term in the sum

Also measurement isn't an operator

Like we're talking about an interacting system interacting during some period of measurement, the idea a wave function simply projects randomly onto one of it's basis eigenstates in a vacuum is ridiculous

Right

I mean this is kinda the problem ... we use the eigenvalue equation ... But don't mention which hermitian operator ... In fact it can't be a hermitian operator like $xp + px$ ... Blah blah blah

We promote the things we want to measure, like position or energy etc into operators

Yea but why I can't I measure $xp + px$?

3:08 PM

But the measurement process itself isn't (usually, at least) some operator

The sad truth is that $H$ and $x$ and $p$ aren't even measurable

Real measurements are complicated

Crazzzzyyyyy level over 1000!

and yes that is factorial

It has eigenvalues you can measure in experiments

I'm guessing ur talking about QFT?

e.g. the spectrum of the hydrogen atom

3:10 PM

@bolbteppa Can't measure that spectrum sharply!

it's all smeared by apparatus

and bounded

Well the sharper you get the more relativistic it gets and we can only approximate!

If you get too sharp, maybe you find strings ;)

@bolbteppa I feel you can write an answer to my question along the lines: the intial conditions of the measuring apparatus are not the same ... But that sounds more like chaos theory :/

Stubby experimentalist fingers?

Not sure what you mean

which part? Chaos theory or different intial position?

I don't know what you mean

3:15 PM

which part do u not understand? there were 2 parts to sentence when u said: "Not sure what you mean"

If your referring to different intial conditions: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/51682456#51682456

If your referring to chaos theory its that I can have the same intial condition (with slight difference) and in one it will go to the extreme right and the other it will go to the extreme left

in the double slit experiment

This seems like Chaos theory

Chaos theory is about like initial conditions on ODE's leading to crazy outcomes with slight variations right, QM is saying you can't even define ODE's which have well-defined paths, different beasts

to be fair I say "like chaos theory"

But in both of them u do have: minimal deviation leading to massive differences

(atleast according to Cophenghen)

even without deviation

3:22 PM

Well if its the exact same intial condition u shd have the exact same final condtion - Noether's theorem

And I am saying deviation in the measuring apparatus

@bolbteppa ??? Thoughts??

@Slereah ?? Hello ???

Have I suddenly made sense? Or have people just given up on me?
I feel one with the sound of silence :P

(expect for my lovely clacky keyboard)

This is more hand-waving, there are important differences, I already pointed out the biggest one, determinism vs non-determinism

what is the source of non-determinism in Cophenghen?

@MoreAnonymous you should read section 7 of this book if you want more details on measurements in QM, one interesting point is it makes an argument that might explain the difference between past and present :p

Paths don't exist, all of classical mechanics fails, probability now governs things

@bolbteppa how about this ... Let me summarise what I've been saying:

If I have the same intial configuration (apparatus + system) then (your) Cophenghen says I should get the same final result

If it doesn't then how is Noether's theorem valid? (which says any system under unitarity evolution should have the same output)

@Slereah am I making sense? Or have you given up?

3:47 PM

Noether says the total energy will be conserved for the total system, and...?

Noether says conservation of energy is the same as saying time translational invariance

Functional medicine

Functional medicine is a form of alternative medicine that encompasses a number of unproven and disproven methods and treatments. Its proponents claim that it focuses on the "root causes" of diseases based on interactions between the environment and the gastrointestinal, endocrine, and immune systems to develop "individualized treatment plans". It has been described as pseudoscience, quackery, and at its essence a rebranding of complementary and alternative medicine. == Description == The discipline of functional medicine is vaguely defined by its proponents. Oncologist David Gorski has written...

sigh...

example of hard to determine quackery that even I have trouble figuring out it is quack as there are enough people opening centres with journals to study it

this post truth business is making everything but mathematics and physics hard to fact check

So the Hydrogen atom, we can measure the spectrum, the whole thing is time-independent non-relativistically and we get answers, not sure how this is relevant

I should make a blog post about why time translation invariance doesn't imply energy conservation

For there are

whoa it's almost 2020

3:50 PM

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Guyssss atleast answer or concede don't dodge :/

@Slereah the proof of Noether comes from assuming variable boundary conditions!

@bolbteppa I can think of counterexamples given bad enough boundary conditions

EM field on Minkowski space minus the origin of space

Awful

Though of course it works out if you also assume 0 field on that

@Slereah do the EOm hold under those conditions?
(yes I have decided it's k if u guys dodge)

Man what are you talking about

3:53 PM

But that is not an initial value boundary condition!

EOM = Equations of motions

what's an initial value boundary condition

Accusing people of dodging, pinging to answer within 5 seconds, come on

is it initial value or is it boundary

There is the initial value problem where it is the field and its derivatives on some cauchy surface

And there's boundary conditions where it is the field on the boundary of the action's domain

3:56 PM

Noether doesn't say the initial conditions of everything are the same as the final conditions, just the total energy is the same

If you have singularities like that, the singularity is a boundary

@bolbteppa the total energy can differ here

@bolbteppa I mean I'm still unclear what happens according to u here: https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/51683106#51683106

And u go on about a Hydrogen atm and end it with "not sure how this is relevant" (which is in the troll zone tbf)

How is it in the troll zone to ask how Noether is relevant...??? Is that serious?

@bolbteppa Ofcourse not! That vversion would mean if I have a ball on the ground it would never move ...

What does "If I have the same intial configuration (apparatus + system) then (your) Cophenghen says I should get the same final result" mean, Copenhagen says you will get random final results

3:58 PM

If it says that what Equations of Motion are you using?

That allow you do so

That doesn't conflict with the total energy being conserved, I gave an example above where it is conserved and this still goes on, and you call this example trolling haha

??

I think you misunderstand Noether's theorem, you can still have dynamics in classical mechanics, things changing in the system, but the overall energy is still conserved

« first day (3234 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1699 days later) »

Transcript for

Sep '1912

The h Bar

General chat for Physics SE (physics.stackexchange.com). For M...

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile