Alexander explains how this results in the conservation of energy. Noether explains the consequences of other symmetries. They may be facts of nature, but you are saying that they are facts of mathematics.

Sorry. Not true. They are assumptions, or axioms if you prefer a better sounding word, of mathematics. Axioms of this sort underly special and general relativity. So I wonder how you ended up with quantum mechanics rather than space mechanics. But I have not yet read that far in your book.

Nature also breaks these symmetries. For example spontaneous rotational symmetry breaking would be outside the scope of your model. Particle entanglement is the most recent example of the breaking of shift symmetry, although that is what I read and I do not understand the mathematics connecting entanglement to the breaking of the shift symmetry. So entanglement is also outside the scope of your model.

Your theory can apparently model everything that has shift time and space and rotational symmetry and for which F=0. I confess though that I do not understand the consequence of the F=0 axiom.

I'm still having fun

Richard

• You misunderstand the issue here! - doctordick - April 25, 2001 - 20:19 UTC
  • Not totally undefined - yanniru - April 26, 2001 - 00:02 UTC
    • You are looking at the problem incorrectly. - doctordick - April 26, 2001 - 20:39 UTC
      • Your transformation is defined - yanniru - April 27, 2001 - 15:19 UTC
        • Let me try again. - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 18:40 UTC
        • From another perspective! - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 19:12 UTC
        • Or a third! - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 19:34 UTC
          • Yes, I am defining my model as symmetric - yanniru - April 27, 2001 - 22:01 UTC
            • Ignore the development!! - doctordick - April 30, 2001 - 14:52 UTC
              • Classical physics is completely based on rationality, except per - yanniru - May 1, 2001 - 01:24 UTC
            • A second issue! - doctordick - April 30, 2001 - 15:02 UTC