Symmetries and Conservation Laws

AI Thread Summary
Conservation laws in physics are closely linked to underlying symmetries, as highlighted by Berkeley's physics course. Noether's Theorem is essential for understanding this relationship, as it connects specific symmetries to particular conservation laws. For instance, the conservation of linear momentum is derived from the invariance of a system's Lagrangian under translations, rather than the homogeneity of space. This distinction emphasizes the importance of a solid foundation in physics and mathematics to fully grasp these concepts. Understanding these principles can inspire further study in physics at the university level.
Lukeblackhill
Messages
39
Reaction score
3
I've been caught by a quite interesting statement of Berkeley physics Course Vol.1 (Chap. 5), that says "In the physical world there exist a number of conservation laws, some exact and some approximate. A conservation law is usually the consequence of some underlying symmetry in the universe.".

I made a quick search on internet and found that a good thing to understand best this relationship between symmetries in a physical system and conservation laws, is the understanding of the so called "Noether's Theorem". I'd like to know if anyone has a better suggestion. My specific desire is to be able to identify which symmetry causes that particular conservation and why (for ex. I know the homogeneity of space is the cause of the conservation of linear momentum, but I haven't think about why).

Thank you!
Luke.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lukeblackhill said:
... for ex. I know the homogeneity of space is the cause of the conservation of linear momentum
That's a quite common "myth": actually the "homogeneity of space" has nothing to do with momentum conservation. This law comes instead from the "translations invariance of the system's Lagrangian" . If you are an high school student, this can be a good reason to study physics at university: probably you cannot completely understand the meaning of this (as others) invariance without a good knowledge of physics and mathematics.

--
lightarrow
 
  • Like
Likes Lukeblackhill
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top