Re: law of conservation

[William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>]

On Fri, 3 Jul 1998, Bob Sciamanda wrote:

> > . . .I thought that conserved quantites (energy)
> > had some significatly different properties than non-conserved quantities
> > (velocity.)  . . .
>
> Bill,
> This statement may be vague enough to be true, depending on just what is
> meant by "significantly different properties".  Can you be specific as to
> just what other connotations you necessarily include in the word
> "conserved"?

Intentionally vauge, yes.  I'm imagining a crude law: "conserved
quantities are substance-like."  Put a surface around a volume, and the
conserved quantity within the volume must be invariant unless there is a
flux (time rate of transfer) through the surface.  But where energy is
involved, thermodynamics makes me suspicious of any of this.  Energy is
substance-like, but it is certainly not tangible, and certainly not like a
fuel. 

To me, charge seems much more substance-like and so obeys my "law" above. 
Yet it certainly is not tangible, and +- annihilation is bizarre, but it
still has extremely strong substance-like features.  If you can violate
conservation and actually eliminate a bit of charge, where do the snipped
ends of the e-field flux go?   :) 


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L