Pin Form: Fill & Download for Free

(Caveat: I'm neither a physicist nor particularly well-versed in symplectic geometry, so take this answer with a grain of salt.)The short motivation is just that physicists realized that velocity and momentum are important concepts. When you realize this, it quickly becomes apparent that instead of just thinking about the configuration space M of a physical system, it's important to consider also the tangent or cotangent bundle. The tangent bundle is "obviously" good because a (point, velocity) pair corresponds to a point on TM. As for how to pass from TM to to T*M, a recipe is to map (point, velocity) to (point, d(Lagrangian)/d(velocity)) = (point, momentum). (See How to see the Phase Space of a Physical System as the Cotangent Bundle. To make this recipe formal you need to regard the Lagrangian [math]L[/math] as a map from TM to the real numbers, and then chase through certain definitions and natural identifications to recognize that the derivative of [math]L[/math] gives rise to an association from pairs [math](x, v)\in TM[/math] (where [math]v[/math] is a velocity, i.e. a tangent vector, at [math]x[/math]) to corresponding pairs [math](x, v^*)[/math] (where [math]v^*[/math] is an element of [math]T^*_xM[/math], the dual vector space to the tangent space). This is really not hard, but it is very annoying to write down in detail in LaTeX, so I'll omit it.) Anyhow, the long and short of it is that the idea of momentum very naturally ends up taking you to the cotangent bundle. And it's simply a fact about the universe that the cotangent bundle of any smooth configuration space is equipped with a God-given symplectic form. Since this structure is there, it makes sense to use it when formulating physical theories.With that out of the way, what the hell is a symplectic form anyway?It may not be too helpful if the terminology is too advanced, but nonetheless I recommend you look at What is a symplectic form intuitively? and What's the physical intuition for symplectic structures? A simple way of putting it is that a two-form a way of measuring area in multivariable calculus. I believe the significance for physics boils down to the following: it turns out that a two-form is precisely what is required to translate an energy functional on phase space (a Hamiltonian) into a flow (a vector field). [See Wikipedia for how the translation goes, or read Arnol'd's book Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, or a similar reference.] The flow describes time evolution of the system; the equations which define it are Hamilton's equations. One property these flows have is that they preserve the symplectic form; this is just a formal consequence of the recipe for going from Hamiltonian to flow using the form. So, having contemplated momentum, here we find ourselves able to describe how systems evolve using the phase space T*M, where not only is there an extremely natural extra structure (the canonical symplectic form), but also that structure happens to b preserved by the physical evolution of the system. That's pretty nice! Even better, this is a good way of expressing conservation laws. When physical evolution preserves something, that's a conservation law. So in some sense, "conservation of symplectic form" is the second most basic conservation law. (The most basic is conservation of energy, which is essentially the definition of the Hamiltonian flow.) You can use conservation of symplectic form to prove the existence of other conserved quantities when your system is invariant under symmetries (this is Noether's theorem, which can also be proved in other ways, I think, but they probably boil down to the same argument ultimately).Well, all I said was that we needed a two-form (area measure) to do this. That's not quite right. The symplectic hypotheses (closed + nondegenerate) are sort of "technical" requirements to make things go through nicely.Saying that the form is closed turns out to be exactly what you need to guarantee "conservation of symplectic form". So it's a very useful condition, and fortunately it is true for the natural area measure on the cotangent bundle T*M.Saying that the form is nondegenerate means that it defines a "good" notion of area (i.e. it doesn't assign zero area to the parallelogram spanned by two nonzero linearly independent tangent vectors at any point). This is a sort of uniqueness property, which also happens to be true for the canonical two-form on T*M. If it weren't for this, the Hamiltonian function would not uniquely pin down the corresponding flow. (Some very hazy intuition for this is as follows. Part of the magic of all this, mentioned above, is that the Hamiltonian flow preserves the symplectic form, which is a sort of "rigidity" of classical trajectories. When a two-form vanishes, preserving it is a looser constraint; specifically, when your notion of area ignores velocity vectors pointing in certain directions v at certain points x, then your trajectory might preserve this notion of area regardless of how fast you are moving in direction v at point x. That seems bad, since physically speaking it should matter how fast you're moving! Of course, this remark doesn't prove anything, since while it's true that classical trajectories must conserve the symplectic form, the opposite needn't be the case -- as far as I know, you can have maps from phase space to itself which respect the area measure [called symplectomophisms] that do not necessarily come from Hamiltonian flows.)To close, however, I gather from the first link above that one shouldn't read too much physical depth into this setup. It just so happens that simple classical mechanical systems follow second-order ODEs (Newton's second law), so their evolution happens to correspond to flows along vector fields. That is, when you know the configuration and the velocity of the system, you know how it evolves. But there's no "theorem" that this has to be true for all of physics, at least as far as I know! And yet it's very simple and elegant geometry, so perhaps it's not surprising that physicists spend a lot of time studying systems that can be described this way, or trying to to reduce the study of more complex systems to this setup, as it is so classically well-understood. Sometimes you might want to use only certain features of the classical situation, like the symplectic form. In these more general situations (arising in thermodynamics, I guess?), even if you can find a nice symplectic or related structure in the mathematical model of the physics, it probably doesn't arise via the cotangent bundle of configuration space construction above. So in that sense the symplectic form may not be "God-given" the way it is on T*M, and might not boil down to anything as obviously physically meaningful as the notion of momentum. But I'm speculating here; as I said I am no physicists and I know nothing about applications of symplectic geometry outside of classical mechanics.

Demand is either something a living organism needs or wants.As human beings we use money to both satisfy needs and wants.Money is intrinsically worthless (except perhaps as fuel for a fire or wallpaper) however human believe that money is exchangeable for what they need or want. That belief is a balloon filled with worthless hot air. In 2008 a pin was stuck into the balloon.In essence money is a lien against natures real value. Gluttons who hoard wealth use valueless money to redirect natures resources to indulge themselves with luxuries while the bulk of the worlds human beings suffer and die from need.In today's world thanks to the failed and false social science of economics the few in power accumulate intrinsically worthless money (fake value) in the form of paper currencies or encrypted digitally stored data.The concept of value must be contemplated very carefully and microscopically to be comprehended. V=N=L value=nature=lifeAn increase in the population of any living organism increases the overall needs to be met.In the case of we self aware human beings it also creates self interest, self concern, self indulgence and inequality due to the gluttony of the few.Natures value is the source of ALL value and all life forms rely 100% on natures value to remain alive and exist.This may be illustrated by my valuenomics equation V=N=L which is indivisible, indisputable and infinite.Life cannot exist without nature and what living organisms value most is remaining alive.We humans are more self aware and self controlled while most life forms intuitively and habitually seek real value from nature that allows them to live.The few humans in power subliminally understand that they must control nature to control other humans and all other life forms. Very few human beings understand themselves or others as they are influenced by their personal beliefs, experiences and a myriad of other personal influences both internal and external. Conventional wisdumb is an example of how large groups of humans influence how one another thinks and what they believe.So now to attempt to answer your question.Demand is increased in several ways.One is the need for natures value in order to remain alive.Once the unavoidable demands of living are met we humans begin to want.A starving individual doesn't want a Ferrari.Those few who control nature throttle natures value for personal gain.Not enough of natures value is extracted and distributed to those in need and due to inefficiency and waste the amount needed is often not available.Waste on the planet is incredible because of the indifference of gluttons and the careless inefficient manner in which real value value is harvested.Often real value is directed to luxuries even while millions die of hunger world wide.This is especially heinous since nature can theoretically more than amply meet the needs of all living organisms on the planet.This is difficult to comprehend because the problem is at the human civilization level.It is truly mind boggling to observe human beings dying of starvation in Somalia in 2017!All I can say to those who will smirk, or defend our civilization and makes excuses is to "think again".Human civilization needs to hit the reset button with the help of science and technology tools that ALREADY EXISTS.

There is a joke that goes as follows:Math Departments are cheap because all a mathematician needs is a pencil, paper and a wastebasket. Philosophy departments are even cheaper because you can skip the wastebasket.Although I think there is a grain of truth in this joke, I also feel it portrays philosophy in a far harsher light than it deserves. Post-modern deconstructionism, after all, constitutes only a very small portion of philosophy.Consider first what many mathematicians and philosophers do have in common:A love for knowledge, truth and reasonA dedication to clarity of thoughtA field of research which requires a lot of abstract thought, and a kind of abstract creativityAn appreciation for well-reasoned argumentsA commitment to question and especially identify hidden assumptions in argumentsIn some areas like formal philosophy, philosophy of physics, foundations of probability and philosophy mathematics, the activities of philosophers become increasingly mathematical, although the formal or mathematical methods are usually in the service of a goal that is primarily philosophical, rather than mathematical, in nature.To give a concrete example, I recently ran into this paper by the well-known philosopher of physics, David Malament, who published it in the Journal of Mathematical Physics and which is essentially indistinguishable from a work a mathematician might have written:https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.523436However, most areas of philosophy are far less mathematical, presenting arguments in the form of natural language.If I had to pin down the difference between philosophy and mathematics to one thing it would be this:Mathematicians work towards the goal of finding true answers to certain questions, while for philosophers that is (often) not the primary goal.The high degree of formalism and rigor in mathematics is not an end to itself, it is a means to ensure that the definite answer one reaches is correct. More than in any other field, it is possible in mathematics to unequivocally determine whether certain definite statements are true or false. Other fields, even the sciences, can only dream of this power of mathematics.For philosophers, it would be nice to find an unequivocally true definite answer to some philosophical problem, but it is in the nature of many philosophical conundra that they do not lend themselves to the kind of methods which yield definite and true answers. It should therefore not be surprising that many philosophical problems have been around for as long as millenia.Consider, for instance, a question that is actually part of my research:What, concretely, do we mean by “existence”?How can one even begin to apply mathematical methods to something as open-ended as this?Clearly, one has to start with some basic assumptions, and already here disagreement (sometimes of the wild kind!) rears its head. Some philosophers think “being” and “existing” are the same, many do not; Some think “existence” can be considered a predicate, others do not, some think “possible worlds” different from ours “exist” on an equal footing as ours, others do not, and so on.In addition, the arguments may often involve nuances which are finer than what is possible to express in the language of mathematics. So, even if you just consider a particular philosophical theory and want to follow the mathematical path, you still have to translate it into that language, which can be another source of vehement disagreement because inevitably there is more than one way to formalize a highly nuanced concept.Even if you manage to get your philosophical theory through these stages, you may find that it gives you definite answers, but ones which are completely counter to common intuitions. See, for example, section 4 of this article on Deontic Logic which discusses some “paradoxes” which arise from formalizing some seemingly reasonable assumptions. Because intuitions are often the basic “data” of philosophy, especially in ethics, that is a problem.In contrast, the basic assumptions, or axioms, of a mathematical field are widely agreed upon by mathematicians, as are the basic definitions, and if an answer contradicts our intuitions, so much the worse for our intuitions (see Banach–Tarski paradox ). So these kind of difficulties that philosophers face don’t even come up and one can focus just on the chains of deductive or mathematical reasoning.This power of mathematics does come at a price, however, and that is that the scope of the questions it can answer is far, far more restricted than the scope of philosophical questions. You are not going to see a theory which attempts to determine the truth or falsity of a proposition like “action x is immoral” as a piece of mathematics because the very notion of morality is far richer and nuanced than can be handled just with mathematics.As with many things, there is a tradeoff here: you can increase your power in unequivocally finding the truth only at the expense of restricting yourself to subjects which make doing so feasible.Consequently, the goals of philosophers, as well as their subjects of investigation, are much more varied than those of mathematicians. Some philosophers may develop and defend a theory or ocasionally solve a problem in a way that the solution is universally agreed to be right, but more often their activities boil down to clarifying assumptions, identifying mistakes in reasoning or hidden assumptions in an argument, presenting counterexamples, framing a problem in a new way, identifying new aspects of a problem or simply just pose new problems.While mathematicians may do any of the above in the course of their work, their primary goal is to prove theorems.