Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Symmetry Question

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on May 6, 2002 22:17:52 UTC


Let me ask you a question. If symmetries are a necessary constraint on physics, and symmetries create most of physics (e.g., the achievements of Emmy Noether), therefore, it is already known that the laws of physics are under special constraints - nothing new is obtained.

In addition, Dick utilizes symmetries in his equations, so it seems almost a trite issue that he would obtain most of the famous physics equations if he includes key symmetry assumptions.

So, I don't understand the big deal. It is just telling us something that we already know.

1) Accept symmetries, obtain physics.

2) Make fancy equations without symmetries, maybe unlikely you obtain physics.

3) Make some fancy equations + add symmetries, maybe you obtain physics

It seems that (3) is what Dick accomplished. Why do you think the results would be any different than what (1) would tend to indicate for (3)? It seems to me like Dick has 'discovered' that symmetries result in the laws of physics. What is incorrect in this assumption?

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins