/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3004373
>it's absurd

The absurdity is indicative of proof by contradiction. The cat will not be both dead and alive, that is fucking retarded, and can actually be proven as fucking retarded if you take the time to do the math/physics.

>>2265148
Mometum is not actually m*v, momentum is actually somthing more fundemental. It may simplify to m*v for very basic systems. In addition, momentum actually may not be conserved, it again depends on your system.

Basically, to derive the defintion of mometum and if conservation arises, you must start off from some more fundemental physics.

In Short:
You basically minimize the difference between the energy you "do have" and the energy you "can have", over all possible paths in space-time (least action principle). The assumtptions you make about the forms of energy you "can have", and the energy you "do have" are purely done from experiment. From these energy combinations you end up having certain mathematical "symmetries".

These symmetries will lead to conserved quantities in your least action principle, Nothers theorm. Hence, we end up have symmetries of nature, and a conserved quantity arising from each symmetery.

The symmetry known as "time homogenity", implies "conservation of energy".

The symmetry know as "gauge symmetery", implies "conservation of charge".

The symmetry known are "spatial translational invarience" implies "conservation of momentum".

Hence,
The manipulation of your Least action equation, will lead you to the approperate definition of "momentum" for your system. And if your system has "spatial translational invarience", then your system has conservation of that momentum. This symmetry basically means that I could shift my system anywhere (no rotation), and the same physics should happen.

Sorry, if it is a bit over your head, but you actually asked a kinda deep question.