Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Harold14370

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

  1. #1 Why we need diferent models to explain the underlying laws of the universe? 
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    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,...


    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    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.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Which is another way of saying we cannot yet explain the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    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?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,239
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    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?
    tk421 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    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.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    There are different methodologies and models because we apply what works best at different scales.[...].
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    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?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Average Human guymillion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    I don'[t think there's anything correct in that whole sentence...certainly nothing supported.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    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.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    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???
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    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???
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    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
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by guymillion View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    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?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Brasil
    Posts
    21
    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.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. One way to explain the Universe
    By mv in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 21st, 2011, 02:21 PM
  2. Evolution Laws, Initial Conditions & The Universe
    By Michael_Roberts in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: September 28th, 2010, 12:32 PM
  3. Explanation why our universe and nature’s laws exist.
    By karel vdr in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 1st, 2010, 04:08 PM
  4. Physics laws, since Universe began?
    By creation in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: January 6th, 2008, 07:37 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 4th, 2006, 03:43 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •