Dear all, Mathematical models and theories are meant to provide efficient and accurate approximations of physical phenomenon. Some models have been ignored assumed to be true for hundreds or thousands years, few of them have been maintained and perfected to be close to reality (atomic models, the universe size, etc.). The human word perception and understanding is getting better every day. Also, most advances in science and technology are overlooked those of the previous cycle. However, these physical principles have been existed since the existence of the earth and the universe. The good news, Many theories and physical principles still exist and are just waiting to be discovered, our ignorance does not mean the absence of such a principle (Human limitation to exploring the earth against the vastness of the universe is a proof). Is there any mechanism or a technique which makes it possible to predict the existence of some new physical phenomenon, etc. or to initiate the reflection process ?. Thanks for your comments.
The possibility of existence of a new, unexplored realm of scientific research is only limited by creative thinking, visualization ability and intuitive understanding capacity, of the researcher involved.
Dear Ait
The best example was Einstein, who just by thinking and reasoning developed the Theory of Relativity, discovering aspects that were never thought to exist, such as the distortion of light by a heavy body, or the Time - Space dimension.
I don't share Depoman opinion about limits. As a matter of fact the Theory of Relativity is written in the language of Tensor Algebra.
Physical phenomena such as those discovered by Planck, are consequence of scientific research, not by thinking and intuition.
Many scientists maintain that the Universe has more than 4 dimensions. It is impossible for us to understand that concept, and then not a matter of visualization.
All the scientific research have an iterative way to evolve ideas. We start to describe what we see using the language we have. If it is not sufficient we try to change our language (mathematical and philological way) in order to preserve all old things that works in order to explore the new line of sight. if is not this case, we observe a phenomenon we cannot explain and so we try to use and change our language to absorb the new with old. Compton and Photoelettric effect were 2 new phenomens at beginning of XX century we observed and they change our language, opening the gate of all new line of sight of Physics.
IMHO, the answer to your question is hidden behind an innocuous title: Metrology. These guys analyse physical principles so as to maintain best possible measurements. For instance, look into evolution of the definition of mass. Impressive.
Thank you L. I. Plimak for response. You mean there is no "absolute" reality ?
Ait Mansour El Houssain
IMHO, no. "Absolute reality" and its properties beyond measurement are all a matter of belief. Physical theories describe our knowledge about this reality within measurement. Personally, I do believe some kind of "absolute reality" exists, but that's it.
Luca Santoro
I like your comment, except I would rather add that mathematics is also a (part of) language. Beyond that, I concur fully.
L. I. Plimak I agree with you. I think "Real" nature is more complicated. However, some approximations are sufficient.
Thanks L. I. Plimak I write "mathematical and philological way" referring to the languange in the sense of what you write. I have some difficulties to write what i mean :). Just an example: in the Athen academia of Plato in his dialogues discuss on "veritas" (latin) it didn' t exist the word reality (realitas, in latin). So only the Logos is a powerful way to reach the pure ideas. So discussing on knowledge without word of reality it is corresponding as discussing on phenomenon without the concept meaning that phenomenon. I think this discussion need more space. But, as it was written, the best approach to the "absolute reality" we have it is the approximation, as an iterative way to move close to the "veritas" as i write.
There is a common distinction between prediction within measurement and prediction past measurement. Prediction within measurement is mainly attributable to the jurisdiction of scientific theories that deal in discrete or non-discrete measurements. The concordance between a discrete measurement and some quantitative prediction means that some existence was proven exactly as given by the theory, barring technical fault and interpretive error of course. On the other hand, with non-discrete results, successful prediction always entails uncertainty in the exact character of the measured entity in relation to the qualities ascribed to it by the model that predicts it. For prediction past measurement, this may be more within the purview of metaphysical theories, which are usually and unfortunately construed as unfalsifiable within more empirical fields of study.
Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence our interpretations of a phenomenon or group of phenomena, we need to use criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory or predict existence of Phenomena.
The first step is the observation and description of a new phenomenon.
Second, formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon (for example for a Physical phenomenon: mechanism or a mathematical relation).
Then, use of the mechanism or mathematical relation to predicting the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. And finally, the performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters.
Dear L. I. Plimak ,
Any measurement is realized with uncertainty!
That is why, humanity sees Nature in clouds of errors and doubts!
"How" is not the problem. The problem is overcoming the social pressure to not change. How - trial and error. Generate observations, note those that conflict with current models, from the observations generate a new model that is consistent with the observations. The social inhibition to change tends to manufacture many ad hoc explanations or to increase the variables/constants such as add "dimensions". and to make the subject SEEM complex (it is not).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics