Natural Computing

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 565–577 | Cite as

Conserved quantities in discrete dynamics: what can be recovered from Noether’s theorem, how, and why?

Article
  • 237 Downloads

Abstract

The connections between symmetries and conserved quantities of a dynamical system brought to light by Noether’s theorem depend in an essential way on the symplectic nature of the underlying kinematics. In the discrete dynamics realm, a rather suggestive analogy for this structure is offered by second-order cellular automata. We ask to what extent the latter systems may enjoy properties analogous to those conferred, for continuous systems, by Noether’s theorem. For definiteness, as a second-order cellular automaton we use the Ising spin model with both ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic bonds. We show that—and why—energy not only acts as a generator of the dynamics for this family of systems, but is also conserved when the dynamics is time-invariant. We then begin to explore the issue of whether, in these systems, it may hold as well that translation invariance entails momentum conservation.

Keywords

Analytical mechanics of cellular automata Second-order dynamics Energy conservation Energy as generator of the dynamics Noether’s theorem in discrete systems 

References

  1. Arnold V (2010) Mathematical methods of classical mechanics, 2nd edn, corr. 4th printing. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  2. Bach T (2007) Methodology and implementation of a software architecture for cellular and lattice-gas automata programming. PhD thesis, Boston University. Also in http://www.ioc.ee/~silvio/nrg/
  3. Bennett CH, Margolus N, Toffoli T (1988) Bond-energy variables for Ising spin-glass dynamics. Phys Rev B 37:2254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boykett T, Kari J, Taati S (2008) Conservation laws in rectangular CA. J Cell Automata 3:115–122MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Complements to this paper (2012) http://www.ioc.ee/~silvio/nrg/
  6. Creutz M (1983) Microcanonical Monte Carlo simulation. Phys Rev Lett 50:1411–1414MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doolen G et al (eds) (1988) Lattice gas methods for partial differential equations. Addison–Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  8. Feynman R, Leighton R, Sands M (1963) Conservation of energy. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol 1, Sections 4-1–4-8. Addison–Wesley, Boston (“Feynman’s blocks”) can be read in their entirety in http://www.ioc.ee/~silvio/nrg/
  9. Gibbs J (1902) elementary principles in statistical mechanics. Developed with especial reference to the rational foundation of thermodynamics. Scribners, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldstein H, Poole C, Safko J (2001) Classical mechanics, 3rd edn. Addison–Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  11. Grant B (2011) News in a nutshell. The Scientist, 31 MarchGoogle Scholar
  12. Hardy J, de Pazzis O, Pomeau Y (1976) Molecular dynamics of a classical lattice gas: transport properties and time correlation functions. Phys Rev A13:1949–1960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kari J (1996) Representation of reversible cellular automata with block permutations. Math Syst Theory 29:47–61MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Kari J (2005) Theory of cellular automata: a survey. Theor Comput Sci 334:3–33MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lanczos C (1986) The variational principles of mechanics, 4th edn. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Landau L, Lifshitz E (1976) Mechanics, 3rd edn. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  17. Lind D, Marcus B (1995) An introduction to symbolic dynamics and coding. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Lind D (2004) Multi-dimensional symbolic dynamics. Symbolic dynamics and its applications. American Mathematical Society, Providence, pp 61–79; also in Proceedings of Symposium of Applied Mathematics, 60Google Scholar
  19. Mackey G (1963) Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. Benjamin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Margolus N, Toffoli T, Vichniac G (1986) Cellular-automata supercomputers for fluid dynamics modeling. Phys Rev Lett 56:1694–1696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Noether E (1918) Invariante Variationsprobleme. Nachr. D. König. Gesellsch. D. Wiss. Zu Göttingen, Math-phys. Klasse 235–257 (English translation at arxiv.org/abs/physics/0503066v1)Google Scholar
  22. Pomeau Y (1984) Invariant in cellular automata. J Phys A 17:L415–L418MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Toffoli T (1984) Cellular automata as an alternative to (rather than an approximation of) differential equations in modeling physics. Physica D 10:117–127MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Toffoli T (1999) Action, or the fungibility of computation. In Hey A (ed) Feynman and computation. Perseus, Reading, pp 349–392Google Scholar
  25. Toffoli T, Capobianco S, Mentrasti P (2004) A new inversion scheme, or how to turn second-order cellular automata into lattice gases. Theor Comput Sci 325:329–344MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tyagi A (1994) A principle of least computational action. In: Workshop on physics and computation. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, pp 262–266Google Scholar
  27. Vichniac G (1984) Simulating physics with cellular automata. Physica D 10:96–115MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of CyberneticsTallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia
  2. 2.ECE DepartmentBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations