News2 mins ago
The theory of physics
Are the laws of physics set in stone like when god gave moses the ten commandments.?..."moses ,here are the ten commandments, that s all there is and there non negotiable" .Isn`t it possible that there are more laws waiting to be discovered ? or the ones we already adhere to might need to be bent or modified . Maybe we might even have to question Newton and Einstein. Modern physics can`t explain dark matter,dark energy, quantum gravity,why the universe is 28 billion light years across yet only 14 billion years old , just to name a few .Who knows, maybe nothing is like we think it is.
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by claymore. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Absolutely - a better question is which ones need modification.
Gravity is the evens favorite - doesn't work well at small scales and might need modification for dark energy.
Dark matter doesn't necessarilly need modifications could still be normal matter we can't see.
Rank outsiders?
Second law of Thermodynamics - but even that has a few dodgy areas in relation to black holes.
If you want certainty - be a mathematician
If you want a voyage of discovery - be a physicist
Gravity is the evens favorite - doesn't work well at small scales and might need modification for dark energy.
Dark matter doesn't necessarilly need modifications could still be normal matter we can't see.
Rank outsiders?
Second law of Thermodynamics - but even that has a few dodgy areas in relation to black holes.
If you want certainty - be a mathematician
If you want a voyage of discovery - be a physicist
that's the exciting thing about science, it's not set in stone. We know what we know now based on observation and experiment, but that may lead us to discover something else. It's a continually evolving process, so the principles from 100 years ago may have been correct then based on what they knew, but using those and what we know we can formulate knew ones.
In Newton's letter to Hooke, "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
In Newton's letter to Hooke, "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
Not set in stone as such, but usually continually reinforced through repetion of experiment. We say "laws of physics" but what we mean are "laws of physics as they currently appear". Scientists are brutal sceptics and like nothing more than debunking each others ideas and do so regularly, remember the cold fusion fiasco etc?. At the edge of understanding are lots of ideas and theories and true to type science does it's best to verify, disprove or understand, it's usually done with an open mind. I'd rather trust science to explain things that any of the current batch of religious fairy tale. Ok science may never have all the answers, that's no reason to stop doing it and sign up to some mumbo jumbo or other.
Well, being the contrarian, I'd say we'd better continue to hope that the subject laws are set in stone. By that I mean, so far, at least, the laws of physics have been seen and tested to result in the observation they are universal. If the laws of motion, for example, weren't universally true, we would not have an observable universe nor would we exist. Newton is as valid here on Earth as he is in Alpha Centauri.
The corollary, however, is that there are certain probable laws (especially in quantum mechanics) that we either don't or can't know. Cosmologists are reasonably agreed (as much as one could expect) that the Big Bang produced, extremely early in the event, perhaps 10 to 14 dimensions, of which we observe only 4.
Jake alludes to principles involved in the formation and maintenace of Black Holes; it can be guaranteed that when the prinicples are discovered they will conform to universally accepted laws that are already set in stone, not contravene them. They may even be entirely new, but insofar as they relate to known Laws of Physics, will not disagree or prove them invalid.
I'd also take issue with the suggestion that there's a notable difference between physicists and mathmaticians in that one cannot exist without the other. The physicist's attempt to explain his observation of gravitaional effects, as an example, are entirely related to mathmatical formulae, no? I've never met a physicist that wasn't a first rate mathmatician... nor a mathmatician that didn't have a good working knowledge of physics.
The corollary, however, is that there are certain probable laws (especially in quantum mechanics) that we either don't or can't know. Cosmologists are reasonably agreed (as much as one could expect) that the Big Bang produced, extremely early in the event, perhaps 10 to 14 dimensions, of which we observe only 4.
Jake alludes to principles involved in the formation and maintenace of Black Holes; it can be guaranteed that when the prinicples are discovered they will conform to universally accepted laws that are already set in stone, not contravene them. They may even be entirely new, but insofar as they relate to known Laws of Physics, will not disagree or prove them invalid.
I'd also take issue with the suggestion that there's a notable difference between physicists and mathmaticians in that one cannot exist without the other. The physicist's attempt to explain his observation of gravitaional effects, as an example, are entirely related to mathmatical formulae, no? I've never met a physicist that wasn't a first rate mathmatician... nor a mathmatician that didn't have a good working knowledge of physics.
Science has no huge advantage over religion because the two are not competitors, no one ever attempted to build a petrol engine based on the ten commandments. The ten commandments don't try and tell you how to build an engine, they tell you how to live your life and be morally just. Also religious laws are not set in stone, they only appear to be, over the years the interpretations have changed of the meanings of many verses and fables.
Do not place religion and science as mutually exclusive partners, they deal in different matters. Occasionally specific statements cross paths e.g. the age of the Earth, but the fundamental ideas of religion do not really lie in what is ultimately the little details of the faith.
Do not place religion and science as mutually exclusive partners, they deal in different matters. Occasionally specific statements cross paths e.g. the age of the Earth, but the fundamental ideas of religion do not really lie in what is ultimately the little details of the faith.
Firstly Clanard, cosmologists are not reasonably agreed that the Big Bang spawned 10 to 14 dimensions. String Theory remains a hypothesis. It has no supporting evidence beyond being a convenient bit of maths that fits previous observations. It has made no succesfully tested predictions.
Einstein added extra terms to Newton's equasions which turned out to be useful approximations at under familiar conditions but fell apart at high velocities. In turn Einstein may only be approximate. There are several unexplained observations that may be caused by further complications in reality.
No matter how important a physicist may be, science is focussed on the theory and observation. If the theory no longer fits even the most famous work becomes a historical curiosity.
Compare this to the situation in religion where an obviously screwed up schitzophrenic like Abraham or a violent mass murderer like Joshua are perpetually exalted regardless of their attrocities conflicting starkly with more highly developed modern sense of morality.
Einstein added extra terms to Newton's equasions which turned out to be useful approximations at under familiar conditions but fell apart at high velocities. In turn Einstein may only be approximate. There are several unexplained observations that may be caused by further complications in reality.
No matter how important a physicist may be, science is focussed on the theory and observation. If the theory no longer fits even the most famous work becomes a historical curiosity.
Compare this to the situation in religion where an obviously screwed up schitzophrenic like Abraham or a violent mass murderer like Joshua are perpetually exalted regardless of their attrocities conflicting starkly with more highly developed modern sense of morality.
There is a real difference between physics and mathematics.
If you make a discovery, a proof, in mathematics it's there for all time.
The same is not true in physics.
Einstein's relativity supplanting Newton's mechanics is the classic example.
One advancement shows the earlier to be merely an approximation.
Similar things have happened in the investigation of the very small and many other fields.
Unfortunately religion and Science do mix - mostly when religion crosses over and starts to talk about the nature of reality.
The creation of the Universe, life, our evolution and the existance and fate of "Souls".
Their history in correctly determining the nature of reality from talking to their invisible friends and magic books is not good.
Sometimes they even hold up the Big Bang as a success but there are only really 2 options and even a stopped clock is right twice a day!
Science has nothing to say on ethics and moral philosophy . That is true. But I've yet to meet a priest who just thought of himself as a moral philosopher!
If you make a discovery, a proof, in mathematics it's there for all time.
The same is not true in physics.
Einstein's relativity supplanting Newton's mechanics is the classic example.
One advancement shows the earlier to be merely an approximation.
Similar things have happened in the investigation of the very small and many other fields.
Unfortunately religion and Science do mix - mostly when religion crosses over and starts to talk about the nature of reality.
The creation of the Universe, life, our evolution and the existance and fate of "Souls".
Their history in correctly determining the nature of reality from talking to their invisible friends and magic books is not good.
Sometimes they even hold up the Big Bang as a success but there are only really 2 options and even a stopped clock is right twice a day!
Science has nothing to say on ethics and moral philosophy . That is true. But I've yet to meet a priest who just thought of himself as a moral philosopher!
And I have yet to meet a priest who claims to be a scientist. Aside from the issue of creation the two never really meet, allow creation as a God of gaps, a metaphor or a ****-up mistake and then religion and science can be mutually beneficent room mates. The bible is no magic book, it never claims to be so, when a preacher says the bible has all he answers he is not literal he is metaphorical. It obviously doesn't have any mathematical or scientific answers. God is not an invisible friend he is a standard, a golden ideal and basically a god, gods aren't friends they are deities.
Although the church made false claims about what orbits what they were not taken from any holy texts, they were the result of an egoistic view of the world shared by all and all faiths at the time. They were proven wrong and accepted it as such, the church as a body lost face but the faith was unshaken.
Aside from creation, which many people of faith accept has to be considered as a metaphor, religion steers pretty clear of taking any firm views on scientific theory instead considering the morality and interpreting ancient texts in a modern context, a tricky job that they deserve more credit for. I know there is the christian science movement but it has minority support and will ultimately never actually get anyone into a position where they can do any serious science. Basically anyone taught 100% christian science will never become an academic, not to say no academic can have faith.
Way back when Muslim countries were far more advanced than their European christian counterparts, all of the geniuses who worked then were of strong faith and yet advanced science and mathematics immeasurably. Faith can bring great strength, motivation and comfort.
Although the church made false claims about what orbits what they were not taken from any holy texts, they were the result of an egoistic view of the world shared by all and all faiths at the time. They were proven wrong and accepted it as such, the church as a body lost face but the faith was unshaken.
Aside from creation, which many people of faith accept has to be considered as a metaphor, religion steers pretty clear of taking any firm views on scientific theory instead considering the morality and interpreting ancient texts in a modern context, a tricky job that they deserve more credit for. I know there is the christian science movement but it has minority support and will ultimately never actually get anyone into a position where they can do any serious science. Basically anyone taught 100% christian science will never become an academic, not to say no academic can have faith.
Way back when Muslim countries were far more advanced than their European christian counterparts, all of the geniuses who worked then were of strong faith and yet advanced science and mathematics immeasurably. Faith can bring great strength, motivation and comfort.
Silly me... I've, somehow, missed the part about religion in claymore's question... thought we were discussing Laws of Physics...
However, try to demonstrate any of the Einsteinian theories without resorting to mathmatical formulas... rather like asking an Italian to talk with his hands tied... Physics and Mathmatics are linked hip and thigh... congenitally.
Heck, we can't even define the absolute limit on the speed of light without a formula... no math, no physics... know physics, know math... or so it seems, no?
However, try to demonstrate any of the Einsteinian theories without resorting to mathmatical formulas... rather like asking an Italian to talk with his hands tied... Physics and Mathmatics are linked hip and thigh... congenitally.
Heck, we can't even define the absolute limit on the speed of light without a formula... no math, no physics... know physics, know math... or so it seems, no?
1 to 13 of 13
