Tag Info

21

None of the interesting equations in physics can be derived from simpler principles, because if they could they wouldn't give any new information. That is, those simpler principles would already fully describe the system. Any new equation, whether it's the Navier-Stokes equations, Einstein's equations, the Schrodinger equation, or whatever, must be ...

18

They are derivable from classical mechanics using either the continuum or molecular points of view. Starting with a continuum view, one applies conservation of mass, momentum, and energy to a control volume and the result is the Navier Stokes equations. The Navier Stokes equations, in the usual form, apply to Newtonian fluids, that is fluids whose stress ...

12

I once asked Putterman after a similar colloquium what he meant by this statement, and his answer was "long time tails". Long time tails are fractional powers that appear in the long time behavior of correlation functions, see, for example, here and here. These fractional powers are seen in molecular dynamics (they are more difficult to see experimentally), ...

5

A theory is a set of statements that is developed through a process of continued abstractions. A theory is aimed at a generalized statement aimed at explaining a phenomenon. A model, on the other hand, is a purposeful representation of reality. As you can see, both share common elements in their definitions. What differs one from the other (in my opinion) ...

5

I was taught that the Standard Model was a misnomer; that it ought to be called the Standard Theory. I'm inclined to agree, though theories and models are both indispensable in science. Ultimately, the purpose of a model is provide local understanding of a particular phenomena. A model: Typically considers only fields, objects or quantities relevant to a ...

4

If a theory is not built on a solid foundation of (semi-rigorous) mathematics and a well-defined physical idea, the chances of it being accepted by the majority of physicists as a valid physical model are extremely small. If one wants to build up a theory of physics purely from philosphy, one will into some significant problems. After all is said and done, a ...

3

If a theory never connects with experimental reality then no matter how neat it is it will eventually be dropped. This is the problem that much of theoretical physics based around the various incarnations of String Theory finds itself. A theory is in one very real sense a data compression and predictive algorithm. It needs to join the experimental dots in ...

3

Your question states that We think we know that matter is anything having mass and that it occupies space but in fact, we know better than that. We have good reason to believe that fundamental particles are point-like. In other words, they have no internal structure, size, or volume. And they indeed have mass. We have a theoretical understanding (in ...

3

In the standard model of particle physics which fits the data up to now elementary particles entering the lagrangian are point particles with mass. The electron, for example is one of the elementary particles, and it does have a mass and the fit gives it 0 volume. There are experiments which try to set limits to how small the volume of the electron is. ...

2

I could give an example of what people mean when they "say": ... metric tensor depend on the local coordinate system and therefore are not intrinsic to the surface Take for example the Schwarzschild metric. We have $$ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{2m}{r}\right)dt^2 + \left(1-\frac{2m}{r}\right)^{-1}dr^2 +r^2(d\theta^2 +\sin^2\theta d\phi^2)$$ If you read this ...

1

Classical physics describes the movement of the center of gravity of extended bodies, which, when poorly taught, in the mind of the student becomes equivalent with "classical physics being a theory of point particles". That, of course, is utterly false, even on the level of the classical description. A center of gravity is a vector, not a point. ...

1

Are theories that are based on the philosophy acceptable in Physics? Sure, but only if backed by maths and experiment. The prime example would be General Relativity, the development of which was guided by a whole bunch of principles (Mach's principle, equivalence principle, principle of covariance). In contrast, Einstein failed to develop a unified ...

1

How accurate are differential equations really, and to what accuracy can we predict future circumstances and events from them? Why does it matter that they are "differential equations"? Differential equations are just one type of model. The question is how accurate are theoretical models. The answer is, the ones you learn about in high school / college ...

1

An equivalent Ohms law can be applied to gas flow and pressure drop, but only for particular mechanical flow restrictions and limited to a range of flow. But more generally for orifices and tubes the relationship between pressure and flow is quadratic, explained predominantly by the energy equation for flow, also known as Bernoulli's equation. In the ...

1

Many popular-science authors such as Stephen Hawking or Brian Greene would try to give you the impression that if M-theory passes all self-consistency checks, there will be one "Mathematically Inevitable Theory of Nature", M-theory. Not trying to diminish the immense proportion of the human achievement a "Theory of everything" would represent, the ...

1

I'll address your question a little different, because talking about volumn and particles is problematic in many ways. Let's phrase your question "can there be two particles with mass be at the same place". The answer is yes. There are two types of particles:fermions and bosons. While fermions (electrons, protons) repel each other (not only because of the ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible