1

x

هدف البحث

بحث في العناوين

بحث في المحتوى

بحث في اسماء الكتب

بحث في اسماء المؤلفين

اختر القسم

القرآن الكريم
الفقه واصوله
العقائد الاسلامية
سيرة الرسول وآله
علم الرجال والحديث
الأخلاق والأدعية
اللغة العربية وعلومها
الأدب العربي
الأسرة والمجتمع
التاريخ
الجغرافية
الادارة والاقتصاد
القانون
الزراعة
علم الفيزياء
علم الكيمياء
علم الأحياء
الرياضيات
الهندسة المدنية
الأعلام
اللغة الأنكليزية

موافق

تاريخ الفيزياء

علماء الفيزياء

الفيزياء الكلاسيكية

الميكانيك

الديناميكا الحرارية

الكهربائية والمغناطيسية

الكهربائية

المغناطيسية

الكهرومغناطيسية

علم البصريات

تاريخ علم البصريات

الضوء

مواضيع عامة في علم البصريات

الصوت

الفيزياء الحديثة

النظرية النسبية

النظرية النسبية الخاصة

النظرية النسبية العامة

مواضيع عامة في النظرية النسبية

ميكانيكا الكم

الفيزياء الذرية

الفيزياء الجزيئية

الفيزياء النووية

مواضيع عامة في الفيزياء النووية

النشاط الاشعاعي

فيزياء الحالة الصلبة

الموصلات

أشباه الموصلات

العوازل

مواضيع عامة في الفيزياء الصلبة

فيزياء الجوامد

الليزر

أنواع الليزر

بعض تطبيقات الليزر

مواضيع عامة في الليزر

علم الفلك

تاريخ وعلماء علم الفلك

الثقوب السوداء

المجموعة الشمسية

الشمس

كوكب عطارد

كوكب الزهرة

كوكب الأرض

كوكب المريخ

كوكب المشتري

كوكب زحل

كوكب أورانوس

كوكب نبتون

كوكب بلوتو

القمر

كواكب ومواضيع اخرى

مواضيع عامة في علم الفلك

النجوم

البلازما

الألكترونيات

خواص المادة

الطاقة البديلة

الطاقة الشمسية

مواضيع عامة في الطاقة البديلة

المد والجزر

فيزياء الجسيمات

الفيزياء والعلوم الأخرى

الفيزياء الكيميائية

الفيزياء الرياضية

الفيزياء الحيوية

الفيزياء العامة

مواضيع عامة في الفيزياء

تجارب فيزيائية

مصطلحات وتعاريف فيزيائية

وحدات القياس الفيزيائية

طرائف الفيزياء

مواضيع اخرى

علم الفيزياء : الفيزياء الحديثة : النظرية النسبية : مواضيع عامة في النظرية النسبية :

Symmetry in space and time

المؤلف:  Richard Feynman, Robert Leighton and Matthew Sands

المصدر:  The Feynman Lectures on Physics

الجزء والصفحة:  Volume I, Chapter 52

2024-07-15

325

The first thing we might try to do, for example, is to translate the phenomenon in space. If we do an experiment in a certain region, and then build another apparatus at another place in space (or move the original one over) then, whatever went on in one apparatus, in a certain order in time, will occur in the same way if we have arranged the same condition, with all due attention to the restrictions that we mentioned before: that all of those features of the environment which make it not behave the same way have also been moved over—we talked about how to define how much we should include in those circumstances, and we shall not go into those details again.

In the same way, we also believe today that displacement in time will have no effect on physical laws. (That is, as far as we know today—all of these things are as far as we know today!) That means that if we build a certain apparatus and start it at a certain time, say on Thursday at 10:00 a.m., and then build the same apparatus and start it, say, three days later in the same condition, the two apparatuses will go through the same motions in exactly the same way as a function of time no matter what the starting time, provided again, of course, that the relevant features of the environment are also modified appropriately in time. That symmetry means, of course, that if one bought General Motors stock three months ago, the same thing would happen to it if he bought it now!

We have to watch out for geographical differences too, for there are, of course, variations in the characteristics of the earth’s surface. So, for example, if we measure the magnetic field in a certain region and move the apparatus to some other region, it may not work in precisely the same way because the magnetic field is different, but we say that is because the magnetic field is associated with the earth. We can imagine that if we move the whole earth and the equipment, it would make no difference in the operation of the apparatus.

Another thing that we discussed in considerable detail was rotation in space: if we turn an apparatus at an angle it works just as well, provided we turn everything else that is relevant along with it.

On a more advanced level we had another symmetry—the symmetry under uniform velocity in a straight line. That is to say—a rather remarkable effect—that if we have a piece of apparatus working a certain way and then take the same apparatus and put it in a car, and move the whole car, plus all the relevant surroundings, at a uniform velocity in a straight line, then so far as the phenomena inside the car are concerned there is no difference: all the laws of physics appear the same. We even know how to express this more technically, and that is that the mathematical equations of the physical laws must be unchanged under a Lorentz transformation. As a matter of fact, it was a study of the relativity problem that concentrated physicists’ attention most sharply on symmetry in physical laws.

Now the above-mentioned symmetries have all been of a geometrical nature, time and space being more or less the same, but there are other symmetries of a different kind. For example, there is a symmetry which describes the fact that we can replace one atom by another of the same kind; to put it differently, there are atoms of the same kind. It is possible to find groups of atoms such that if we change a pair around, it makes no difference—the atoms are identical. Whatever one atom of oxygen of a certain type will do, another atom of oxygen of that type will do. One may say, “That is ridiculous, that is the definition of equal types!” That may be merely the definition, but then we still do not know whether there are any “atoms of the same type”; the fact is that there are many, many atoms of the same type. Thus, it does mean something to say that it makes no difference if we replace one atom by another of the same type. The so-called elementary particles of which the atoms are made are also identical particles in the above sense—all electrons are the same; all protons are the same; all positive pions are the same; and so on.

After such a long list of things that can be done without changing the phenomena, one might think we could do practically anything; so let us give some examples to the contrary, just to see the difference. Suppose that we ask: “Are the physical laws symmetrical under a change of scale?” Suppose we build a certain piece of apparatus, and then build another apparatus five times bigger in every part, will it work exactly the same way? The answer is, in this case, no! The wavelength of light emitted, for example, by the atoms inside one box of sodium atoms and the wavelength of light emitted by a gas of sodium atoms five times in volume is not five times longer, but is in fact exactly the same as the other. So, the ratio of the wavelength to the size of the emitter will change.

Another example: we see in the newspaper, every once in a while, pictures of a great cathedral made with little matchsticks—a tremendous work of art by some retired fellow who keeps gluing matchsticks together. It is much more elaborate and wonderful than any real cathedral. If we imagine that this wooden cathedral were actually built on the scale of a real cathedral, we see where the trouble is; it would not last—the whole thing would collapse because of the fact that scaled-up matchsticks are just not strong enough. “Yes,” one might say, “but we also know that when there is an influence from the outside, it also must be changed in proportion!” We are talking about the ability of the object to withstand gravitation. So what we should do is first to take the model cathedral of real matchsticks and the real earth, and then we know it is stable. Then we should take the larger cathedral and take a bigger earth. But then it is even worse, because the gravitation is increased still more!

Today, of course, we understand the fact that phenomena depend on the scale on the grounds that matter is atomic in nature, and certainly if we built an apparatus that was so small there were only five atoms in it, it would clearly be something we could not scale up and down arbitrarily. The scale of an individual atom is not at all arbitrary—it is quite definite.

The fact that the laws of physics are not unchanged under a change of scale was discovered by Galileo. He realized that the strengths of materials were not in exactly the right proportion to their sizes, and he illustrated this property that we were just discussing, about the cathedral of matchsticks, by drawing two bones, the bone of one dog, in the right proportion for holding up his weight, and the imaginary bone of a “super dog” that would be, say, ten or a hundred times bigger—that bone was a big, solid thing with quite different proportions. We do not know whether he ever carried the argument quite to the conclusion that the laws of nature must have a definite scale, but he was so impressed with this discovery that he considered it to be as important as the discovery of the laws of motion, because he published them both in the same volume, called “On Two New Sciences.”

Another example in which the laws are not symmetrical, that we know quite well, is this: a system in rotation at a uniform angular velocity does not give the same apparent laws as one that is not rotating. If we make an experiment and then put everything in a space ship and have the space ship spinning in empty space, all alone at a constant angular velocity, the apparatus will not work the same way because, as we know, things inside the equipment will be thrown to the outside, and so on, by the centrifugal or Coriolis forces, etc. In fact, we can tell that the earth is rotating by using a so-called Foucault pendulum, without looking outside.

Next we mention a very interesting symmetry which is obviously false, i.e., reversibility in time. The physical laws apparently cannot be reversible in time, because, as we know, all obvious phenomena are irreversible on a large scale: “The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on.” So far as we can tell, this irreversibility is due to the very large number of particles involved, and if we could see the individual molecules, we would not be able to discern whether the machinery was working forward or backwards. To make it more precise: we build a small apparatus in which we know what all the atoms are doing, in which we can watch them jiggling. Now we build another apparatus like it, but which starts its motion in the final condition of the other one, with all the velocities precisely reversed. It will then go through the same motions, but exactly in reverse. Putting it another way: if we take a motion picture, with sufficient detail, of all the inner works of a piece of material and shine it on a screen and run it backwards, no physicist will be able to say, “That is against the laws of physics, that is doing something wrong!” If we do not see all the details, of course, the situation will be perfectly clear. If we see the egg splattering on the sidewalk and the shell cracking open, and so on, then we will surely say, “That is irreversible, because if we run the moving picture backwards the egg will all collect together and the shell will go back together, and that is obviously ridiculous!” But if we look at the individual atoms themselves, the laws look completely reversible. This is, of course, a much harder discovery to have made, but apparently it is true that the fundamental physical laws, on a microscopic and fundamental level, are completely reversible in time!