= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JamesPfeiffer comments on [Transcript] Richard Feynman on Why Questions - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (44)
I don't see how. Either you're misunderstanding something, or you have a higher background in quantum mechanics than I do (I've had one in-depth class, and I've read the quantum physics sequence), and it works out like this for reasons I do not currently understand. Which is it?
In any case, force is clearly defined in the simplified version of quantum physics I've learned. It's the gradient of potential energy, which must be specified in the Schroedinger equation. The Pauli principle is not a force. It may be that force is always due to symmetry, in which case calling the Pauli principle a symmetry doesn't separate them at all, but the Pauli principle is still not a force.
Indeed, conservation laws correspond to symmetries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_Theorem
That has a lot of explanatory power for why I linked Noether's Theorem the first time around.
I must have missed that. Sorry.
I must have missed that. Sorry.
Conservation laws are not forces. There are hypothetical patterns of force that would not conserve these things, but the way things normally move is not the only one. For example, if there were no forces, all the conservation laws will still work.
Also, from what I understand, that's more a symmetry in the laws themselves, where the Pauli principle is a symmetry in the waveform being operated on.