F
FromTheAshes
Guest
And, no disrespect, but Physicists usually don't have a clue how to build something. Engineers got man to the moon, scientists got a bunch of rocks afterwards.Amalthea said:I could tell, and no offence but engineers seem to often not understand physics.
Yes, it's generalizations based of a real-world experiment. Pretty cool that Noether is (was? Is she dead?) a woman. I have a friend who's a math major, and man, half the time I don't have a clue what she's doing.Again an engineer speaking. Physics is more than real world experiment. By the way Emmy Noether was a woman!
If it's purely mathematical then it needs experimentation to prove that it has a real-world connection. Either way experimentation is in the links.Noether's theorem is purely mathematical use of the variational principle of calculus. If the 'action' is unchanged under some group of tranformations on the coordinates and the scalar field then there exist conserved quantities. This is physics at the fundamental level. The conservation of energy is the time translational symmetry of spacetime, period.
Out of curiousity, it's been suggested that the 2nd law, or the principles behind it, is what defines the one-directional aspect of the arrow of time. If there's any validity in that, what would happen if the second law broke down?Think where a flat spacetime breaks down. On the global cosmological scale there are problems formulating energy conservation and near the Big Bang singularity. The 2nd Law has a similar problem as you cannot define the arrow of time that synopsises the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
Exactly! They're expirimentally proven and verified laws. I like them much better then mathematical constructs.Absolutely incorrect. The laws of thermodynamics originally were based on experiment. See James Joules work for instance.
If the gadget you're building works when you build it right then your theory is fine.You can approach them theoretically via energy conservation but this technically requires a Minkowskian spacetime. Take that away and you don't necessarily have this. You are putting the cart before the horse and starting off from thermodynamics. You strictly cannot do this. Practically as in an engineering sense you can get away with it but that doesn't make it right. Remember, engineers engineer things, physicists do science.
Upvote
0