- #1
DaPi
- 19
- 1
(I throw myself on your mercy - I'm sure my language needs tightening up.)
Let's start with Noether's theorem stated as: invariance under displacement in time implies conservation of energy.
The converse is: non-conservation of energy implies non-invariance under displacement in time.
Which would mean experiments would not be repeatable, and we wouldn't be able to do science as normally accepted.
Is this wrong, trivial or profound?
Does it place us in a similar position as the anthropic principle does - in this case, having chosen the scientific method we can't observe a violation of conservation of energy?
Your comments welcome - DaPi
Let's start with Noether's theorem stated as: invariance under displacement in time implies conservation of energy.
The converse is: non-conservation of energy implies non-invariance under displacement in time.
Which would mean experiments would not be repeatable, and we wouldn't be able to do science as normally accepted.
Is this wrong, trivial or profound?
Does it place us in a similar position as the anthropic principle does - in this case, having chosen the scientific method we can't observe a violation of conservation of energy?
Your comments welcome - DaPi