The most fundamental principle in physics is called 'The Principle of Least Action'. It also happens to be a good principle to live by during these trying times
-
-
Replying to @InertialObservr
I always found this principle a bit "strange". Is it about physics or about math? It looks to me like a funny way to write equations in, say, another form, very useful, but I am not sure about its "fundamentality" from the physics point of view.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @rayohauno
i would argue that there's no more fundamental principle. it's one of those things that has remained true from classical mechanics all the way down to quantum field theory
5 replies 3 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr @rayohauno
it's a principle because there's no (as we now know) any a priori reason why Nature chooses the path that makes the integral over kinetic *minus* potential stationary
3 replies 0 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr
but that is a bit circular. in the end, you choose the lagrangian that gives you the right equation.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @rayohauno
you're missing the point .. you choose the *general* form of something called a lagrangian and assert that nature must respect the trajectories that make the action stationary .. you need to make definitions some how, right? defining something is not circular
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr
the lagrangian is just a function of coordinates and its derivatives; it can be anything. for me, it is just another way to encode equations.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @rayohauno
but it CANT be anything, physically. it must be the kinetic minus potential or else the thing your making stationary has no correlation with reality
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr
like equations cannot be anything for them to match certain physical phenomena. the kinetic minus potential is just another way to express relations between functions and its derivatives
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @rayohauno @InertialObservr
But doesn’t it need to be THAT PARTICULAR relationship between a function and it’s derivative for it to be useful?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
indeed, up to a gauge transformation
-
-
Replying to @InertialObservr @dcwych
which i think like another way to say that the underlying equations are "related" to a certain geometry.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @rayohauno @dcwych
i mean, sure you can talk about fibre bundles and how the gauge fields are local connections along it but i don't see how that ties into what you're saying at all
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.