Thread: Why we need diferent models to explain the underlying laws of the universe?

Why we need diferent models to explain the underlying laws of the universe?

To explain the physical phenomena of small scales (10 ^ -35 to 10 ^ -10 meters) we use QM, Hilbert geometry,...

To explain the physical phenomena of large scales (10 ^ 10 to 10 ^ 25 meters) we use GR, Riemann geometry,...

To explain the physical phenomena of normal scales(10 ^ -10 to 10 ^ 10 meters) we use Newton, Euclid geometry,...

Because they are just models and are not completely accurate descriptions of reality. We don't have a GUT yet, but even when we do, it will still be much more practical to use the different models because those are what gives us useful results.

Which is another way of saying we cannot yet explain the universe.

Hello again John Galt.
You are correct and we never will if the present attitude is continued.

Due to humanities centuries of being able to deal with the elementary side of mathematics and geometry, the knowledge has gradually increased by the use of relatively simple experiments to the situation of today where the study of one branch of mathematics has been united with geometry (GR); mathematics now represented by various symbols, embraces the whole of known physics and has reached mental saturation for the brightest amongst us to fully understand. In contrast to the small cost of earlier experiments, present experiments are costing many billions of dollars. Consequence of the joining together of mathematics and geometry, we now find too much investigative thought of fully qualified physicists directed towards ideas of parallel universes and garden path like ideas of Worm Holes in the Space/time continuum.

Originally Posted by GWN

Due to humanities centuries of being able to deal with the elementary side of mathematics and geometry, the knowledge has gradually increased by the use of relatively simple experiments to the situation of today where the study of one branch of mathematics has been united with geometry (GR); mathematics now represented by various symbols, embraces the whole of known physics and has reached mental saturation for the brightest amongst us to fully understand. In contrast to the small cost of earlier experiments, present experiments are costing many billions of dollars. Consequence of the joining together of mathematics and geometry, we now find too much investigative thought of fully qualified physicists directed towards ideas of parallel universes and garden path like ideas of Worm Holes in the Space/time continuum.

I really don´t understand what do you mean?..Are you saying that as the joining together of mathematics and geometry...has been something good or bad for the increasing of the knowledg and the improving of the physics?

Originally Posted by dapifo

Why we need diferent models to explain the underlying laws of the universe?

To explain the physical phenomena of small scales (10 ^ -35 to 10 ^ -10 meters) we use QM, Hilbert geometry,...

To explain the physical phenomena of large scales (10 ^ 10 to 10 ^ 25 meters) we use GR, Riemann geometry,...

To explain the physical phenomena of normal scales(10 ^ -10 to 10 ^ 10 meters) we use Newton, Euclid geometry,...

GR gives the best answer in both of the last two cases. The only reason we usually don't apply it at normal scales is that GR and Newton agree very closely to each other at these scales and Newton is simpler to work with.

Originally Posted by GWN

we now find too much investigative thought of fully qualified physicists directed towards ideas of parallel universes and garden path like ideas of Worm Holes in the Space/time continuum.

How much investigative thought is directed by fully qualified physicists toward parallel universes and worm holes? What is the right amount of thought that should be directed? Why should a fully qualified physicist take your advice?

There are different methodologies and models because we apply what works best at different scales. You could measure the distance from your house to your workplace in inches, but you would probably use miles because they best suit the model.

Even if a GUT is developed that satisfies the scientific world, we will probably still use specific models within GUT for different areas of study.

Originally Posted by TheObserver

Because they are just models and are not completely accurate descriptions of reality. We don't have a GUT yet, but even when we do, it will still be much more practical to use the different models because those are what gives us useful results.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

There are different methodologies and models because we apply what works best at different scales.[...].

Originally Posted by Janus

GR gives the best answer in both of the last two cases. The only reason we usually don't apply it at normal scales is that GR and Newton agree very closely to each other at these scales and Newton is simpler to work with.

So...you are also saying that the scenarios (at least the large and the small scales) are very different, although the underlying laws could be the same.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Which is another way of saying we cannot yet explain the universe.

You mean the "Whole Universe"....and we only are able to explain it by scale ranges or spectra.

We hope that M-Theory could explain the whole "Observable Universe" or the scale ranges or spectra that we know....but what will happen when the scale ranges or spectra will wide or enlarge in the future?...Because I think it will be wided and elarged...don´t you?

Originally Posted by TheObserver

Because they are just models and are not completely accurate descriptions of reality. We don't have a GUT yet, but even when we do, it will still be much more practical to use the different models because those are what gives us useful results.

I was not aware that we hadn't developed a GUT yet, isn't supersymmetry supposed to do this?

Originally Posted by dapifo

Originally Posted by GWN

Due to humanities centuries of being able to deal with the elementary side of mathematics and geometry, the knowledge has gradually increased by the use of relatively simple experiments to the situation of today where the study of one branch of mathematics has been united with geometry (GR); mathematics now represented by various symbols, embraces the whole of known physics and has reached mental saturation for the brightest amongst us to fully understand. In contrast to the small cost of earlier experiments, present experiments are costing many billions of dollars. Consequence of the joining together of mathematics and geometry, we now find too much investigative thought of fully qualified physicists directed towards ideas of parallel universes and garden path like ideas of Worm Holes in the Space/time continuum.

I really don´t understand what do you mean?..Are you saying that as the joining together of mathematics and geometry...has been something good or bad for the increasing of the knowledg and the improving of the physics?

GR gave us an improvement to the mathematics of Newtonian gravitation to allow for increases in mass, and then by the geometric bases of the mathematics supporting the physics, unintentionally provided the ability for the mathematics to be extended as stated regarding concepts that don’t rely on the reality demanded by basic physics

I don'[t think there's anything correct in that whole sentence...certainly nothing supported.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

I don'[t think there's anything correct in that whole sentence...certainly nothing supported.

That pretty much sums up all of GWN's posts.

Originally Posted by GWN

GR gave us an improvement to the mathematics of Newtonian gravitation to allow for increases in mass, and then by the geometric bases of the mathematics supporting the physics, unintentionally provided the ability for the mathematics to be extended as stated regarding concepts that don’t rely on the reality demanded by basic physics

Do you mean that the geometric bases of the mathematics supporting the physics, allows mathematics and physics to develope models that are not really true in to explain the whle universe?....that without these new maths could be easyer and clearer to modelize the universe underlying laws???

Originally Posted by GWN

GR gave us an improvement to the mathematics of Newtonian gravitation to allow for increases in mass, and then by the geometric bases of the mathematics supporting the physics, unintentionally provided the ability for the mathematics to be extended as stated regarding concepts that don’t rely on the reality demanded by basic physics

Do you mean that the geometric bases of the mathematics supporting the physics, allows mathematics and physics to develope models that are not really true in to explain the whle universe?....that without these new maths could be easyer and clearer to modelize the universe underlying laws???

I think what he means is that science went wrong when it got too difficult for him to understand.

This seems to be a common complaint: why does modern science have to be so complicated? I assume it is because the universe is very complicated and we have exhausted what the simplistic models can tell us (1). We need more detailed/accurate models to tell us more about how the universe works.

I see no reason to assume that the universe should be simple enough that it can be described in a way that can be understood fully by an average inhabitant of an average planet around an average star.


(1) to make sure that this comment is still on topic

Originally Posted by guymillion

Originally Posted by TheObserver

Because they are just models and are not completely accurate descriptions of reality. We don't have a GUT yet, but even when we do, it will still be much more practical to use the different models because those are what gives us useful results.

I was not aware that we hadn't developed a GUT yet, isn't supersymmetry supposed to do this?

When GUT...or T-M will be usefully developed ... they will be able to explain and modelize Our Observable Universe (since 10 ^ -35 to 10 ^ +26 meters)...but what will happend out of these limits?....

The history says and show that these limits have ben widing during the years (just 200 years ago the Known limits of the universe were since 10 ^ -10 to 10 ^ +20 meters)... and my opinion is, based on the history, that the current limits will be also wided during the next years.

The question could be: Does GUT...or T-M will be enough to explain these new scale spectra...or we will need new model for them?

Originally Posted by dapifo

Does GUT...or T-M will be enough to explain these new scale spectra...or we will need new model for them?

How can we possibly know. Arguably, it wouldn't be a GUT if it doesn't apply at all scales and distances.

Calculation,is the science prays for answers.
But to learn those,you had go to school for the written knowledge being shared.
It is under copyrights and progress are structured under charge,
for the others being able to understand the code for math operations.

The problem is for the prison state where freedom is under base knowledge,
these models being modeled up natural resources creates the alien world it looks for.
Development then is under assassination.

Wow,do not forget my literature credits on your research,or hollywood movies and stuff.....

WDHells, that was pure word salad. I am going to ban you, so that that the members will not have to waste time reading this type of post in the future.