Equivalence Classes in Physics: Tutorial Papers & Relationship to Units

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pervect
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Classes Equivalence
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concept of equivalence classes in physics, particularly in relation to how different unit systems (such as feet and inches) can represent the same physical laws. Participants explore the implications of this idea for understanding fundamental constants and the mathematical nature of equivalence in physical theories.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks tutorial papers on equivalence classes in physics, emphasizing that changing units (e.g., from feet to inches) does not alter the observable aspects of theories.
  • Another participant proposes that in continuum theories, only diffeomorphism invariant scalars can be measured, raising questions about the nature of fundamental constants.
  • A participant mentions the connection between different definitions of entropy, indicating uncertainty about how these definitions relate to the concept of equivalence classes.
  • Discussion includes the idea that changing units may be analogous to changing coordinates, particularly in the context of continuous versus discrete entropy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the nature of equivalence in physical theories and the implications for fundamental constants. There is no clear consensus on the correctness of the ideas presented, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the relationship between different definitions of entropy and equivalence classes.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential confusion surrounding the implications of varying fundamental constants and the mathematical relationships between different unit systems. The discussion highlights the need for clarity in definitions and assumptions related to entropy and equivalence.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying the foundations of physics, unit systems, and the mathematical underpinnings of physical theories, as well as individuals exploring the implications of equivalence classes in theoretical contexts.

pervect
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
10,482
Reaction score
1,635
Are there any good, preferably tutorial, papers on equivalence classes with regards to theories of physics, and how they relate to units?

Specifically, I'm looking for something that discusses that if you formulate the laws of physics in feet, then convert the units to inches, you haven't changed any observable aspects of the theory, that the laws of physics expressed in "inches" are equivalent to the laws of physics expressed in feet.

Very basic stuff, but I see confusion on this topic all the time,usually related to the issue of varrying fundamental constants.

(On the topic of varying constants - We have Duff proposing similar ideas, but his explanations aren't particularly to those who don't already grasp the point of equialence classes, and I think there are some problems in general with his presentation, as a lot of people seem fit to disagree with some of what he says in the literature).

Ideally, such a paper would go on to explain that the equivalence class relationship is a mathematical one, and that it applies irrespective of whether you call an inch and inch, or whether you call an inch a foot, i.e. that the point is that the theories themselves are mathematically equivalent, regardless of how you name things.

But I'll take whatever I can find at this point...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Two ideas which I don't know are right or wrong:

1. The only things in a continuum theory that we can measure are diffeomorphism invariant scalars.

2. The fundamental constants cannot change, unless we have a theory in which those constant are not fundamental.

As an example to start discussion, consider the Boltzmann entropy versus the Shannon mutual information in the case where p(x) is a probability density?
 
I recall that entropy can be considered to be defined either by the theromdynamic definition \Delta S = \Delta Q / T or by the statistical mechanics definition
(k * ln(number of states), but I don't recall the details of how the two defintions were connected anymore. Which I suspect is related to the point you were making, but I'm not quite sure I understand it.
 
I was thinking of the statistical definition of entropy.

There's no problem with entropy in the discrete case. In the continuous case, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_entropy" is. I assume change of units is a sort of change in coordinates.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
8K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
559
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K