Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: re:Flow of energy



Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 13:16:22 EDT
From: David Bowman <dbowman@tiger.gtc.georgetown.ky.us>

Likewise, I think there is no great harm
in speaking of energy flow as long as it is recognized that energy, as such,
is not a physical thing or a substance, but the value of a particular
function (i.e. the Hamiltonian) of the microscopic dynamical observable
variables characterizing the system itself.

To mathematicians, flow and vector field are interchangeable concepts. Once
one allows Hamiltonians, one has vector fields and their associated things
mathematicians call local flows. We cheerfully refer to anything described
with a vector field as flowing; for example, we have no qualms about saying
that mean curvature flows, or discussing transport of some unrelated thing
along the Ricci flow (from Ricci curvature) in higher dimensions.
So why not just refer to it as a mathematical abstraction or something?

*************************
Phil Parker Email: pparker@twsuvm.uc.twsu.edu
Math. Dept., Wichita St. Univ. Fax: 316-978-3748
I find [in mathematics] a wonderful beauty. This is no science,
this is art, where equations fall away to elements like resolving
chords, and where always prevails a symmetry either explicit or
multiplex, but always of a crystalline serenity.
---Turjan of Miir (Jack Vance)