Deductively proving the conservation of momentum

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the deductive proof of the conservation of momentum, specifically questioning whether it can be established without observation or experience. Participants confirm that while Newton's third law can be used to prove momentum conservation, it relies on inductive reasoning. The conversation highlights Noether's theorem as a valid approach, asserting that the invariance of physical laws under spatial translations leads to the conservation of momentum. However, the Pauli exclusion principle is deemed unrelated to Newton's third law, emphasizing the distinction between classical and quantum mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's third law of motion
  • Familiarity with Noether's theorem
  • Basic knowledge of classical mechanics
  • Awareness of the Pauli exclusion principle in quantum mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Noether's theorem on conservation laws
  • Explore the relationship between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the philosophical implications of deductive reasoning in science
  • Examine the limitations of scientific inquiry without empirical evidence
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers of science, physics students, and researchers interested in the foundations of physical laws and the interplay between classical and quantum theories.

Mektrik
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I won't go into all the details but, to summarize, I'm planning on writing something on the philosophy of science and I was wondering if it's possible to deductively prove, that is without the use of observation or experience, the conservation of momentum. I know that it's possible to prove it using Newton's third law, but that itself requires induction.

As a side note, without meaning to sound too pretentious, is it possible to prove Newton's third law using Pauli's exclusion principle? If so, is the exclusion principle deductive?

Anyway, apologies for my naivety and I look forward to seeing your responses.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, it's called Noether's theorem. If you make the assumption that the laws of physics are invariant under translations in space - that is the laws of physics are the same here as they are in China or on the moon or in another galaxy, then the quantity we define as m\vec{v} in classical mechanics is conserved.

Pauli exclusion principle is purely quantum mechanical, and has nothing to do with Newton's third law. The whole concept of a force is a purely classical idea.
 
dipole said:
Yes, it's called Noether's theorem. If you make the assumption that the laws of physics are invariant under translations in space - that is the laws of physics are the same here as they are in China or on the moon or in another galaxy, then the quantity we define as m\vec{v} in classical mechanics is conserved.

Pauli exclusion principle is purely quantum mechanical, and has nothing to do with Newton's third law. The whole concept of a force is a purely classical idea.

Ahh, for reasons which I won't go into, is there a way to do it without using Noether's theorem? Sorry for not mentioning this earlier and thanks for the reply!
 
Is there a way to prove conservation of momentum based on the pure force of logic along the lines of "cogito ergo sum" without recourse to experiment? Nope, certainly not.

One can conceive of a universe in which reactionless drives exist. Science fiction is full of such creations.
 
jbriggs444 said:
Is there a way to prove conservation of momentum based on the pure force of logic along the lines of "cogito ergo sum" without recourse to experiment? Nope, certainly not.

One can conceive of a universe in which reactionless drives exist. Science fiction is full of such creations.

One could 'conceive' the Moon being made of green cheese but is it relevant to Science?
 
sophiecentaur said:
One could 'conceive' the Moon being made of green cheese but is it relevant to Science?

Certainly not. But the question that was posed was not about science. It specifically repudiated the use of observation and experience.
 
jbriggs444 said:
Certainly not. But the question that was posed was not about science. It specifically repudiated the use of observation and experience.

I have to ask what the point is of considering deliberately non-Science questions* in a Science Forum.
*questions / hypotheses that are not testable.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
8K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K