I think that physicists are too quick to claim that “the laws of physics break down” when they cannot explain something. For example, any discussion that involves the concept of a singularity is immediately followed by the disclaimer that the laws of physics must break down. This sounds like an excuse rather than a scientific fact. However, there might actually be conditions which are so far removed from our knowledge that it appears as if the known laws of physics break down. For example, today we have no explanation for dark energy. Is this a case of the laws of physics breaking down or a case of no one suggesting an answer using known laws? Can you comment or offer any examples which seem to imply that the known laws of physics are so inadequate that they appear to break down?
Mohamed, Your answer sounds very interesting, but it lacks enough detail for me to research this further. Therefore, please expand on your answer.
i think most physicists mean it figuratively when they say that the laws of physics break down.Also it is the laws of physics as we know them.The phrase simply implies that we haven't discovered a proper explanation for the phenomenon.
''What he did not consider is that this point from which light is emitted is also a point of the frame of the mirror which is moving inside the frame of the mirror as it also is a point of the frame of the outside observer. Then for the frame of the moving mirror, the so called time dilation does not occur.''
This sir,is not just wrong,it is fatally wrong.The emitter when locally considered is not in the frame of the observer in any possible way.
From wikipedia :
''In Einsteinian relativity, reference frames are used to specify the relationship between a moving observer and the phenomenon or phenomena under observation. In this context, the phrase often becomes "observational frame of reference" (or "observational reference frame"), which implies that the observer is at rest in the frame, although not necessarily located at its origin. A relativistic reference frame includes (or implies) the coordinate time, which does not correspond across different frames moving relatively to each other. The situation thus differs from Galilean relativity, where all possible coordinate times are essentially equivalent''
There are no naked emperors sir,not even naked singularities.
I was using wikipedia as it is widely accessible.Anyway if you want to debate physics it is preferable that you don't invent your own definitions.
The infinities probably do not occur, but some other function becomes dominant.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Quantum Physics
- Quantum Mechanics