Matter conservation Vs. Quantum Physics

[joinfree]

The laws of conservation (such as energy, momentum, rotational momentum, baryon and lepton numbers) are known from classical Physics.

One can be sure, that its validity guarantees our everyday experience.

The Quantum Physics is totally different from Classical one. Can we be sure then, that the conservation of matter applies?

According to Copenhagen Interpretation: "there is no Moon, until one looks at it". Therefore, the Moon physical characteristics do not conserve, are not invariant. Particle changes into undetectable wave, and wave changes into particle. So, the Nature of quantum particle is changeable, is not invariant. Nature is what is measured by Standard Instruments, and latter are what measures the Nature.

So, there are no conservations in Quantum Physics?

So, let our God make "lawless" wonders?

 

[essentialsaltes]

The Quantum Physics is totally different from Classical one. Can we be sure then, that the conservation of matter applies?

It doesn't, at least not in the classical sense. As you rightly observe, quantum physics is not classical physics.

For instance, classically, energy is absolutely conserved.

In quantum mechanics, energy is subject to fluctuations, and these fluctuations are governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

The uncertainty in Energy (deltaE) is limited by the uncertainty in time. And the product is limited by Planck's constant (h) which is 'very small' which is why we don't notice these effects in our daily life.

In brief, the larger a fluctuation in energy, the shorter a time it can last. But there is enough wiggle room that particles can come out of the vacuum (so mass is not conserved either - of course mass and energy are the same thing, as Einstein demonstrated) and disappear again. And these 'virtual particles' have real world effects that we can measure. Like the Casimir Effect.

According to Copenhagen Interpretation: "there is no Moon, until one looks at it".

That is not what the Copenhagen Interpretation says. It is barely even a loose metaphor for it.

So, there are no conservations in Quantum Physics?

There are a number of quantum conserved properties. Things like spin and electric charge and CPT symmetry.

So, let our God make "lawless" wonders?

I'm just telling you how the universe works. You'll have to figure out what that means for your theology.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

The laws of conservation (such as energy, momentum, rotational momentum, baryon and lepton numbers) are known from classical Physics.

One can be sure, that its validity guarantees our everyday experience.

The Quantum Physics is totally different from Classical one. Can we be sure then, that the conservation of matter applies?

According to Copenhagen Interpretation: "there is no Moon, until one looks at it". Therefore, the Moon physical characteristics do not conserve, are not invariant. Particle changes into undetectable wave, and wave changes into particle. So, the Nature of quantum particle is changeable, is not invariant. Nature is what is measured by Standard Instruments, and latter are what measures the Nature.

So, there are no conservations in Quantum Physics?

So, let our God make "lawless" wonders?

The field is conservative in QM. Energy can't be conserved in QM unless you restrict enough parameters so that you can take a measurement. For now, it is impossible to calculate conservation if we follow the rules of QM.

Usually an alleged non-physical element is renormalized; operators or a transformation into another space help to keep QM related to the laws of physics for large particles at relatively small velocity.

 

[Sorn]

In theory, if we actually lived inside a very sophisticated simulation running in Gods PC then it may well be true that something does not exist until we look at it as the computer would generate that part of the world / universe that we look at or observe as we are observing it.
I don't believe this is the case but if it were it would be very difficult if not impossible to prove that is what was happening.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Apparently energy isn't conserved (in the classical sense) even under General Relativity - once you allow a dynamic spacetime, the energy of particles moving through it isn't necessarily conserved (although if you include the energy of the gravitational field as 'negative' energy, you can achieve a zero energy sum for the universe as a whole).

 

[Michael]

Puting "hypothesis/theory" aside for a moment, can any of you demonstrate via *controlled experimentation* that energy is not conserved in any interaction?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Puting "hypothesis/theory" aside for a moment, can any of you demonstrate via *controlled experimentation* that energy is not conserved in any interaction?

Conceptually and and in general - one can attempt. But the reality is that at the clearance level of a civilian, it cannot be shown. If you believe in the Most High God, then you may know energy is never conserved' it is radiated infinitely, at every infinitesimal.

No momenta is actually conserved, but the "theory" is applied to make it line up with classical mechanics: this is why I said

Usually an alleged non-physical element is renormalized; operators or a transformation into another space help to keep QM related to the laws of physics for large particles at relatively small velocity.​

That includes alleged state functions like entropy. Finite entities cannot measure infinity, but it can be modelled. Quantum Mechanics is in infancy; it is actually quite crude and spotty. I prefer topological field theory because of its mathematical base, although QCD and QED tend to rely more on "axiom" than math. Most physics QM topics rely on axiomatic theory to postulate more theory - and sometimes that makes for "wacky" physics that (ironically) becomes standard until someone comes along and challenges the paradigm.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Puting "hypothesis/theory" aside for a moment, can any of you demonstrate via *controlled experimentation* that energy is not conserved in any interaction?

Not being an expert in this field, I couldn't say - but I see that 'Robert' commented to Sean Carroll's article to say:

One might add that every GPS receiver assumes this particular form of energy non-conservation by including relativistic corrections to the photon energy (=frequency) it receives when it tells us how far we are from the nearest Starbucks.

If one accepts General Relativity as a good model of the relationship between matter, energy, and spacetime, conservation of energy would seem to be a limit approximation, as for Newtonian (classical) mechanics.

At the quantum scale, non-conservation of energy over micro-timescales is at the core of quantum mechanics, by the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as it relates energy to time. Vacuum energy, a result of the HUP, can be demonstrated in the lab by the Casimir effect. However, it's indirectly observable in most quantum-scale effects, not least the strong nuclear force.