Talk:Continuity equation

message: Suggest introducing Brownian motion as a first example of probability continuity, before bringing up quantum mechanics. A Brownian particle is closer to a classical one and its explanation would be more intuitive as to how mass flow becomes probabalized, and this example could then help clarify the QM example. --69.126.41.101 (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good idea. I rewrote it a bit, I hope you don't mind. :-D --Steve (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brownian motion and probability continuity 

message: <<<This statement does not immediately rule out the possibility that energy could disappear from a field in Canada while simultaneously appearing in a room in Indonesia.>>>
I am not saying that this is a bad sentence. It is perfectly okay when you are describing it to anyone. But I think it doesn't fit at the very beginning of an encyclopedic article. A good (and of course a simple) rephrasing would be preferable.
There are several other instances where it is advisable to revise the literature. Such as,
* nor can it "teleport" from one place to another
* the laws of physics in Brazil are the same as the laws of physics in Argentina. Ahmedafifkhan 07:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, the tone and wording of those sentences is sufficiently formal / professional / encyclopedic as is. But if you have a better alternative I'm happy to hear it. I will be pleasantly surprised if you propose an alternative that is actually equally easy to read and understand. My experience instead has been that the people who go around trying to make things sound more professional are usually doing terrible, counterproductive things like replacing common words with their jargon-y synonyms, replacing concrete descriptions with harder-to-follow abstract descriptions, and so on. (I hope that that stereotype does not apply to you!) --Steve (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have a better sentence than the following? 

message: Heat doesn't 'flow', it is not a fluid. The example of heat in a solid is particularly troublesome. One of Fourier's many great contributions to science was to show that heat diffuses in solids. The situtation in fluids is much more complicated because fluids really do flow (!), as in central heating. But this is flow of mass and the evidence is that heat does not have mass. Any analysis that proposes heat 'flowing' is just an unfortunate use of language.--Damorbel (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Electric current isn’t a fluid either, but we say an electric current flows in a circuit. Why do you say anything that isn’t a fluid cannot flow? Dolphin (t) 11:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heat flow? 

message: I thought this page should make it clear who is the first one applied current continuity equation. In Maxwell's equations of Maxwell himself, the continuity equation is included. current continuity equation is also the reason for Maxwell to introduce the displacement current which led correct Maxwell's equation. 
As I know Gustav Robert Kirchhoff in his 1857 paper "On the Motion of Electricity
in Conductors" has applied current continuity equation, but I do not know whether has some one before him has applied current continuity equation.
Imrecons (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who first apply current continuity equation?