On the oddly pervasive notion of the conservation of energypic.twitter.com/j0iWw1sbTY
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Somewhat embarrassingly, I don't actually know what the quantum version of N's theorem is. I presume it's likely some obvious statement about operators commuting with the Hamiltonian or something...
Yep, by definition a symmetry (e.g. x or t translations) commutes with the evolution operator e^{-iHt}, which means the generator of the symmetry commutes with the Hamiltonian so is conserved. For time translation symmetry the Hamiltonian commutes with itself so is conserved.
whence the lagrangian with time translation symmetry? (a fair amount of my QFT course was the lecturer writing down a lagrangian and then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ing)
this tweet chain just led me to this thread which is greathttps://mathoverflow.net/questions/12602/noethers-theorem-in-quantum-mechanics …
Regardless of how one actually proves Noether’s Theorem, I think it’s correct to think of energy as something that is conserved because of time-translation invariance. Evidence: with non-time-invariant laws, energy is not conserved!
Nice way of thinking; I like the last point. It still leaves as a puzzle why qm and classical mechanics see this. You can formulate QM as (classical) Hamiltonian evolution on a suitable phase space, but it's sorta artificial...
There is a sort-of proto-version of Noether's theorem in the simpler Newtonian formulation as well - at least when you can write down explicit solutions: https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.10557
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.