One source is popping back the forces they experienced during their approach, the other is the forces they experienced as they separated. Since they are at their initial separation again, the stack is empty, so there is zero potential energy; and there’s no reason the kinetic energy should be what it was initially. So energy has been added or subtracted.
You got it backwards. The stack reads in from infinity, not from 0 separation. As they approach, they’re pushing, not popping. Plus, the contents of the stack are included in the potential energy, so either way you cut it, it adds up. If the randomness is on the side you don’t integrate from, you won’t have changes.
~~~
As for the magnetic forces thing, having a preferred frame of reference is quite different from laws no longer being invariant under translation. What you mean is that the laws are no longer invariant under boosts.
Noether’s theorem applied to that symmetry yields something to do with the center of mass which I don’t quite understand, but seems to amount to the notion that the center of mass doesn’t deviate from its nominal trajectory. This seems to me to be awfully similar to the conservation of momentum, but must be technically distinct.
Yes. Then as they separate, they pop those forces back out again. When they reach separation X, which can be infinity if you like (or we can just define potential energy relative to that point) they have zero potential energy and a kinetic energy which cannot in general be equal to what they started with. The simplest way of seeing this is to have the coupling be constant A on the way in, then change to B at the point of closest approach. Then their total energy on again reaching the starting point is A integrated to the point of closest approach (which is equal to their starting kinetic energy) plus B integrated back out again; and the potential energy is zero since it has been fully popped.
What you mean is that the laws are no longer invariant under boosts.
Yes, you are correct. Still, the point stands that you are abandoning some symmetry or other, and therefore some conservation law or other.
Your example completely breaks the restrictions I gave it. The whole idea of pushing and popping is that going out is exactly the same as the last time they went in. Do you know what ‘stack’ means? GOing back out, you perfectly reproduce what you had going in.
Still, the point stands that you are abandoning some symmetry or other, and therefore some conservation law or other.
As I already said, if you constrain it that tightly, then you end up with our physics, period. Conservation of charge? That’s a symmetry. Etc. if you hold those to be the same, you completely reconstruct our physics and of course there’s no room for randomness.
Your example completely breaks the restrictions I gave it. The whole idea of pushing and popping is that going out is exactly the same as the last time they went in.
Oh, I see. The coefficients are only allowed to change randomly if the particles are approaching. I misunderstood your scenario. I do note that this is some immensely complex physics, with a different set of constants for every pair of particles!
Edit to add: Also, since whether two particles are going towards each other or away from each other can depend on the frame of reference, you again lose whatever conservation it is that is associated with invariance under boosts.
If you hold those to be the same, you completely reconstruct our physics and of course there’s no room for randomness.
Right. The original question was, are there any conservation laws you can knock out without losing determinism? It seems conservation of whatever-goes-with-boosts is one of them.
You got it backwards. The stack reads in from infinity, not from 0 separation. As they approach, they’re pushing, not popping. Plus, the contents of the stack are included in the potential energy, so either way you cut it, it adds up. If the randomness is on the side you don’t integrate from, you won’t have changes.
~~~
As for the magnetic forces thing, having a preferred frame of reference is quite different from laws no longer being invariant under translation. What you mean is that the laws are no longer invariant under boosts.
Noether’s theorem applied to that symmetry yields something to do with the center of mass which I don’t quite understand, but seems to amount to the notion that the center of mass doesn’t deviate from its nominal trajectory. This seems to me to be awfully similar to the conservation of momentum, but must be technically distinct.
Yes. Then as they separate, they pop those forces back out again. When they reach separation X, which can be infinity if you like (or we can just define potential energy relative to that point) they have zero potential energy and a kinetic energy which cannot in general be equal to what they started with. The simplest way of seeing this is to have the coupling be constant A on the way in, then change to B at the point of closest approach. Then their total energy on again reaching the starting point is A integrated to the point of closest approach (which is equal to their starting kinetic energy) plus B integrated back out again; and the potential energy is zero since it has been fully popped.
Yes, you are correct. Still, the point stands that you are abandoning some symmetry or other, and therefore some conservation law or other.
Your example completely breaks the restrictions I gave it. The whole idea of pushing and popping is that going out is exactly the same as the last time they went in. Do you know what ‘stack’ means? GOing back out, you perfectly reproduce what you had going in.
As I already said, if you constrain it that tightly, then you end up with our physics, period. Conservation of charge? That’s a symmetry. Etc. if you hold those to be the same, you completely reconstruct our physics and of course there’s no room for randomness.
Oh, I see. The coefficients are only allowed to change randomly if the particles are approaching. I misunderstood your scenario. I do note that this is some immensely complex physics, with a different set of constants for every pair of particles!
Edit to add: Also, since whether two particles are going towards each other or away from each other can depend on the frame of reference, you again lose whatever conservation it is that is associated with invariance under boosts.
Right. The original question was, are there any conservation laws you can knock out without losing determinism? It seems conservation of whatever-goes-with-boosts is one of them.