quantumtopology Posted June 4, 2010 Report Posted June 4, 2010 Classical physics is mostly time-invariant. In modern physics is seen as a goal and versions of quantum field theory and special relativity are also time-invariant. GR apparently doesn't satisfy it. All Standard cosmologies (FLRW cosmologies) don't conserve energy. They do not have the time symmetry needed to apply Noether's theorem. I wonder ,When formulating physical models , should we concern ourselves with trying to make conservation of energy a key feature of our model, or in other words, is time-invariance a desirable goal for any physical theory "a priori"? Quote
modest Posted June 6, 2010 Report Posted June 6, 2010 This is worth the read, Energy Is Not Conserved | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine ~modest Quote
quantumtopology Posted June 6, 2010 Author Report Posted June 6, 2010 This is worth the read, Energy Is Not Conserved | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine Thanks, I found that article by Sean Carroll last week and it kind of aroused my question, I thought it was an interesting debate theme and I wanted to know what people thought about it, I guess it's a little abstract issue. Regards Quote
modest Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 in other words, is time-invariance a desirable goal for any physical theory "a priori"? I guess the stress-energy tensor is conserved, or time invariant. Individual non-gravitational components of the tensor, like energy, are not conserved... apparently... Stress-energy tensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ~modest Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.