Re: Suggested modification of law of conservation of energy
- Quoting stephankrieg <stephenk1@...>:
>> Total energy is not conserved,But surely that's the basis of a lot of quantum physics!?
>> but measurable energy is conserved.
> Isn't it equivalent to suggesting that Nature can violate
> the laws of physics so long as it never gets caught doing so?
Tunneling is an effect of that type; as is the momentary
appearance of particle pairs that allow black holes to evaporate.
Indeed, almost any spooky effect could be viewed that way -
2-slit experiments amount to things going through both holes
because you can't catch them going through either one,
(and if you do their whole behaviour changes).
Probably most/all cases of Heisenberg could be viewed as...
> Nature violating the laws of physics provided she doesn't get caught at it",...when viewed appropriately.
Not that I'm defending Kermit's suggestion, which I think is rather vague
and thus rather silly; but at least let it be criticized for the right fault!
-- Tendentious Taylor
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
- "stephankrieg" stephenk1@... stephankrieg
said on Date: Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:15 am ((PDT))
> --- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Kermit Rose <kermit@...Hi Stephen.
> > wrote:
> > Suggested modification of law of conservation of energy:
> > Total energy is not conserved,
> > but measurable energy is conserved.
> > Kermit
> Hi Kermit,
> What motivates this suggestion of yours?
> Isn't it equivalent to suggesting that Nature can violate the laws
> of physics so long as it never gets caught doing so?
> Unless we postulate that the universe is subject to, for example,
> all of the laws of thermodynamics, then we are limiting ourselves to
> only being able to create explanatory models that are limited by our
> ability to make measurements.
> Basing physics on 'in principle' observables is one thing, but on
> the sum of what we can imagine as ways to measure reality is quite
You are exactly right. My suggestion was made exactly to highlight the
core of the Quantum Mechanical controversies.
I agree that basing physics on 'in principle' observables is one thing,
but on the sum of what we can imagine [snip] reality is quite another.
I suggest that we become aware of the distinction. I suggest that we
generally acknowledge the distinction. In that way, we can work on
making both types of physics. Perhaps the physics based on our
imaginations of reality would better be called metaphysics.
One of the predictions of the quark theory of proton construction was
that the quarks could never be observed as isolated particles.
This example is close to what I have in mind.