Strange Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 But you are now using the word theory in a different sense as well, you weren't meaning "from other scientific theories" or were you? That's exactly what I meant. Which of the 3 versions did you use? It might the first. None of those fit the scientific usage of the word. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2][3][4] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature[citation needed] and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted February 18, 2016 Author Share Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) No, since I understand the word ‘inviolate’. http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/inviolate http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/inviolate http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inviolate Nothing in science is inviolate. That's exactly what I meant. None of those fit the scientific usage of the word. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory So are you saying Einstein used "scientific theory" to derive his equation when you said "it was an equation derived from theory"? Edited February 18, 2016 by Robittybob1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Now he get's it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Nothing in science is inviolate. So are you saying Einstein used "scientific theory" to derive his equation when you said "it was an equation derived from theory"? Exactly. It is derived by applying the theory of special relativity to Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism (aka Maxwell's equations - which I suppose could be called the "laws of electromagnetism" but, again, I don't think I have heard that usage). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted February 18, 2016 Author Share Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) Exactly. It is derived by applying the theory of special relativity to Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism (aka Maxwell's equations - which I suppose could be called the "laws of electromagnetism" but, again, I don't think I have heard that usage). How did you take the inviolate bit? "Are there any aspects of physics that are inviolate and absolutely immutable?" https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_there_any_aspects_of_physics_that_are_inviolate_and_absolutely_immutable The answers there generally point to science is not inviolate. But I must admit I'd be surprised if a law of physics was ever falsified. They have been tested by experiment. No, since I understand the word ‘inviolate’. http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/inviolate http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/inviolate http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inviolate Did you agree? Edited February 18, 2016 by Robittybob1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 How did you take the inviolate bit? "Are there any aspects of physics that are inviolate and absolutely immutable?" https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_there_any_aspects_of_physics_that_are_inviolate_and_absolutely_immutable The answers there generally point to science is not inviolate. But I must admit I'd be surprised if a law of physics was ever falsified. They have been tested by experiment. Dark energy and dark matter, suggests otherwise; so, no, I don’t agree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted February 18, 2016 Author Share Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) Exactly. It is derived by applying the theory of special relativity to Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism (aka Maxwell's equations - which I suppose could be called the "laws of electromagnetism" but, again, I don't think I have heard that usage). In 1905 was special relativity an accepted theory or was it just an hypothesis at that stage? This physics in a minute video goes through the derivation of the famous equation. There was not actual experimentation from the look of it. Did he really use cats? "Einstein's Proof of E=mc²" Dark energy and dark matter, suggests otherwise; so, no, I don’t agree... For clarity can you expand on your ideas so they become clearer to us? Dark energy and dark matter have yet to be fully proven AFAIK so how are you using these ideas as a connection to science being inviolate? I have lost your train of thought sorry. Now he get's it... Was there proof of special relativity in 1905? If there wasn't, SR is an hypothesis at that stage, if that is the case you can't say he used scientific theory to derive the energy equation. In that video he says "it follows from his paper on special relativity ...." There is no claim that it was a theory at that stage. There seems to be even another category of ideas called "effects" as in the Poynting Robertson effect. They never say it is anything other than an effect. It seems more like a hypothesis for there is no real proof, as in I haven't read of any experiments to prove it. But there are reasons and formulas that show it could work and it uses ideas very similar to Einstein's radioactive cats. Einstein's first paper was on the photoelectric effect. So how do you overturn an effect? Is that just by showing the laws and theories supporting the cause of the effect have not been applied properly? You would not be claiming the scientific laws are falsified but just their connection/application to the effect is incorrect. Edited February 18, 2016 by Robittybob1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 But I must admit I'd be surprised if a law of physics was ever falsified. Despite the examples of "laws" that have been shown to be wrong? Such as conservation of energy - first, special relativity shows that is not general enough so we get conservation of mass-energy. Then GR shows that even mass-energy isn't always conserved. Newton's "universal law of gravitation" isn't universal. And so on. In 1905 was special relativity an accepted theory or was it just an hypothesis at that stage? That is an interesting one. It was a straightforward mathematical derivation from Maxwell's equations (and the assumption that Galilean relativity is correct). So it would be hard to imagine it wouldn't be correct. So I would say it was stronger than a hypothesis but, arguably, not a tested theory at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted February 18, 2016 Author Share Posted February 18, 2016 Despite the examples of "laws" that have been shown to be wrong? Such as conservation of energy - first, special relativity shows that is not general enough so we get conservation of mass-energy. Then GR shows that even mass-energy isn't always conserved. Newton's "universal law of gravitation" isn't universal. And so on. I was referring primarily to the currently accepted ones (laws of physics) not so much the historic ones. That conservation of energy discussion was peeled off into a separate thread. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93590-conservation-of-energy-in-gr-split-from-universal-laws/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 I was referring primarily to the currently accepted ones (laws of physics) not so much the historic ones. What reason is there to think the situation is any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted February 19, 2016 Author Share Posted February 19, 2016 What reason is there to think the situation is any different? Hopefully we learn from our past mistakes. Today the whole world is involved with science, TV, YouTube, Twitter, FaceBook, sites with feedback, science articles freely available on the web, on and on the consensus opinion (peer review) will be enormously powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Learning from past mistakes doesn’t mean we can’t learn more and that will always be the case in science; certainty is political not scientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted February 19, 2016 Author Share Posted February 19, 2016 Learning from past mistakes doesn’t mean we can’t learn more and that will always be the case in science; certainty is political not scientific. Not only that but they seem to be tackling the most difficult of questions. So we are bound to come up wrong at times but it doesn't become a dogma until it is thoroughly evidenced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Hopefully it never becomes dogma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 (edited) Are there Universal Laws? Can you break them? What are they? Is the a consequence of breaking a law? Violating the triangle inequality would require some rewriting of mathematics, greatly affecting the parts of Physics that depend upon it. Which brings us to an issue that has been touched on, the difference between a Law, a Theory and I will add one more, a Principle. Although there is a Principle of Relativity, here is a simpler example. The Principle of the Lever is semi mathematical in that it comes in the form of an inequality, The Law of the Lever is fully mathematical and comes as an equation. Fermat's Principle, on the other hand is non mathematical. Edited February 19, 2016 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted February 20, 2016 Author Share Posted February 20, 2016 Hopefully it never becomes dogma. The idea of postulates comes close. Thanks to Google postulateverb 3rd person present: postulates ˈpɒstjʊleɪt/ 1. suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief. "his theory postulated a rotatory movement for hurricanes" synonyms: put forward, suggest, advance, posit, hypothesize, take as a hypothesis, propose, assume, presuppose, suppose, presume, predicate, take for granted, theorize "such hypotheses have been postulated by highly reputable geologists" 2. (in ecclesiastical law) nominate or elect (someone) to an ecclesiastical office subject to the sanction of a higher authority. "the chapter was then allowed to postulate the bishop of Bath" nounformal plural noun: postulates ˈpɒstjʊlət/ 1. a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief. "perhaps the postulate of Babylonian influence on Greek astronomy is incorrect" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Fermat's Principle, on the other hand is non mathematical. Although it can be expressed more accurately using mathematics. The idea of postulates comes close. Thanks to Google I would say that a postulate is better described as a working assumption; assumed to be true until proved otherwise. If any part of science is dogma, then it implies it can't be overthrown by evidence. So, perhaps, the only dogma is that evidence trumps everything! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 The idea of postulates comes close. Thanks to Google Nah - not even close. The most famous of all postulates - which exercised geometers and mathematicians for centuries, maybe millennia, was under constant challenge and finally it was shown that alternative theories could be founded on the basis that the postulate as not true. Thus we had Euclidean Geometry in which the parallel postulate holds and non-Euclidean Geometry in which the postulate does not hold but an alternative does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 strange studiot, on 19 Feb 2016 - 11:52 PM, said: Fermat's Principle, on the other hand is non mathematical. Although it can be expressed more accurately using mathematics. Thank you Strange, forgot my own thoughts there, I meant Huygen's Principle of course. Fermat's is indeed mathematical, but nevertheless a good example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted February 20, 2016 Author Share Posted February 20, 2016 Thank you Strange, forgot my own thoughts there, I meant Huygen's Principle of course. Fermat's is indeed mathematical, but nevertheless a good example. So we have another category as well that of principle. Google definition "Principle a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics. 3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics". Does that fit the meaning as in Fermat's Principle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 So we have another category as well that of principle. Google definition "Principle a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics. 3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics". Does that fit the meaning as in Fermat's Principle? Yes the Physics definition seems as good as any, though don't expect 'general' to be too general. It fits both Fermat's and Huygens Principles. You don't seem to have noticed I gave an example of a bunch of Physics 'Laws' (I am not going to write the rest of the list out every time) that appear to be unbreakable. In the micro quantum world Heisenberg's UP and in the macro electronics world Nyquist and the minimum bandwidth theorem all come from the same stable as the triangle inequality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted February 20, 2016 Author Share Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) Yes the Physics definition seems as good as any, though don't expect 'general' to be too general. It fits both Fermat's and Huygens Principles. You don't seem to have noticed I gave an example of a bunch of Physics 'Laws' (I am not going to write the rest of the list out every time) that appear to be unbreakable. In the micro quantum world Heisenberg's UP and in the macro electronics world Nyquist and the minimum bandwidth theorem all come from the same stable as the triangle inequality. I have read all the posts in this thread AFAIK. A list of laws etc I remember thinking there was nothing I could say in response to that. That was something I was going to look up "triangle inequality". I wasn't sure what that was about. What is the key point to your understanding of the triangle inequality? Triangle Inequality Theorem. The sum of the lengths of any two sides of a triangle is greater than the length of the third side. In the figure, the following inequalities hold. a + b > c. seems logical you could even say "Triangle Inequality Theorem. The sum of the length of the two shorter sides of a triangle is greater than the length of the longest side." It seemed pointless adding the short side to the longest side on the vain hope it will be more than the other shorter side. What happens when all 3 sides are of equal length Rob? Decision process would be stuck in a loop trying to decide which two of the three sides to add together. Edited February 20, 2016 by Robittybob1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 In the micro quantum world Heisenberg's UP and in the macro electronics world Nyquist and the minimum bandwidth theorem all come from the same stable as the triangle inequality. Those are all purely mathematical results and so you would expect them to be inviolate. (Although the HUP may no longer hold if quantum mechanics is completely reformulated.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) Those are all purely mathematical results and so you would expect them to be inviolate. (Although the HUP may no longer hold if quantum mechanics is completely reformulated.) But the purely mathematical cannot be inviolate - they can be perfectly self-consistent and one can show that no other result can be found that isn't self-contradictory; however, they rely utterly on the foundational postulates. Maths is axiomatic rather than empirical - and any axiom can fail or we can just decide that this week we shall use a different axiom. Special relativity is one of modern man's highpoints and is beautifully consistent mathematically - but we set limits of operation outwith it no longer holds; and similarly Euclidean Geometry is one of early mankind's great achievements - but it relies on the parallel postulate and if there are two more lines through that point then you get elliptical and if there are none then you get hyperbolic. Empirical theories fall down on limits of applicability and the vagaries of absolute proof rather than likelihood - Mathematical Theorem fall down because they must be based on axiomata as there is nothing that is agreeably self-evident. Edited February 20, 2016 by imatfaal elliptical and hyperbolic are wrong way around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 But the purely mathematical cannot be inviolate - they can be perfectly self-consistent and one can show that no other result can be found that isn't self-contradictory; however, they rely utterly on the foundational postulates. Maths is axiomatic rather than empirical - and any axiom can fail or we can just decide that this week we shall use a different axiom. Special relativity is one of modern man's highpoints and is beautifully consistent mathematically - but we set limits of operation outwith it no longer holds; and similarly Euclidean Geometry is one of early mankind's great achievements - but it relies on the parallel postulate and if there are two more lines through that point then you get elliptical and if there are none then you get hyperbolic. Empirical theories fall down on limits of applicability and the vagaries of absolute proof rather than likelihood - Mathematical Theorem fall down because they must be based on axiomata as there is nothing that is agreeably self-evident. How does that apply to the triangle inequality and the Physical laws that flow from it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now