Talk:Conservation law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Mathematics
Mathematics Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.
Mathematics rating: Start Class Mid Priority  Field: Mathematical physics
WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of High importance within physics.

Someone more knowledgable could perhaps combine the information from Conservation laws into this topic and redirect from there. I'm linking here from conservation, which discusses the social ethic of conservation, as opposed to the physical laws (axioms?).BobCMU76 17:00 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

conservation links to a disambiguation --H2g2bob 14:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CPT symmetry

What about violations?

[edit] Information

Conservation of information: http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/digital_philosophy/11_conservation_of_information.htm

The page you linked to is about "Digital Philosophy", which freely admits to being in conflict with our current understanding of physics. It implies that a law of conservation of information is in conflict with quantum mechanics, which is universally accepted by physicists. Whether you happen to buy into "digital mechanics" or not, the fact remains that this is not mainstream physics, and putting it along side the other conservation laws could mislead someone into thinking otherwise. Also, there's a law of conservation of information proposed by William Dembski, of intelligent design fame, which has been criticized widely and is also not accepted by physicists (indeed, it is considered to contradict the second law of thermodynamics). In theory, there could be a section about "Proposed conservation laws" which includes things not generally accepted (yet?), but I don't see how this guy Ed Fredkin's views are especially noteworthy, or if they've garnered serious attention from anyone. There are plenty of homepages out there who plan to refute all of physics and establish their own new paradigms. Jagan 02:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Jagan is right. I'll remove this from the article. Yevgeny Kats 17:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


First of all conservation of information should be mentioned in context of digital physics. And secondly "inteligent design" by Dembski is not (in any way) related to the digital physics by Fredkin.

Dear contributor, digital physics is a speculative hypothesis, which is not an established part of mainstream physics. Therefore its elements should not appear in a general article on physics, in a same list with principles like conservation of energy and momentum. You are encouraged, however, to describe the conservation of information in the article on digital physics if you are familiar with the subject. Yevgeny Kats 22:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Conservation of information is not "Fredkin only" theory. All advanced physicists are claiming conservation of information should rule the universe. 't Hooft, Susskind, Witten, Hawking, to mention just top of the mountain. Go read something about black hole radiation.
The author of the last comment has a point. Ever heard of Hawking radiation? Whether or not information is conserved when matter is swallowed by a black hole is a topic of much debate of late.Kr5t 05:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservation of Center of Mass motion

Re reversion by Lambiam: the conservation of center of mass motion is not the same as conservation of linear momentum; the first is due to invariance under Lorentz boosts, the second due to invariance under space translations. The difference is important in general relativity, where a "center of mass" cannot be defined in the usual manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.248.125 (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)