Posted by Pasti on May 29, 2003 at 00:14
(64.10.126.16)
Hey, I am back, and I checked for progress on the Noether issue, aqnd there was none :)
Al, the ref you mentioned is an extension of the Noether theorem to include gauge transformations (equivalence classes if you like), and it is pretty much the same thing (in a less complicated formalism)as the formulation of the Noether theorem on bundle sections.However, the original Noether theorem did not include gauge transformations.
As for developing a Noether "formalism" for discrete symmetries,think about this:can you write your transformation as a group element in the (mathematical) neighbourhood of the identity element of a Lie group?
This is just to save you some time, in case you actually spent some on the problem.
And one more thing.As much as the equivalence principle goes,did you notice that it is a local principle?Because of this locality, the inner structure of the masses becomes pretty much irrelevant.
And even if the locality is extended to some non-trivial neighborhood,and even if your experimet were successful, did it ever occur to you that this is not a proof that the equivalent principle is wrong (I'll let you figure out why by yourself).
Your ideea has a certain merit, but not by far the merit you claim.
Re: Noether theorem vs. Runge_Lenz (cont'd) Uncle Al 30/5 12:19
(1)