Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Every theory in physics has limitations. Classical mechanics (Newton)
doesn't work on the very large scale or very small scale. Einsteins
theory for special relativity works great on the atomic level and in
inertial reference frames - however it breaks down when gravity or has
to be considered and general relativity is needed.

Even as beautiful and useful as the theory general relativity is (it's 
even used in your hand held GPS receiver) it breaks down on the quantum 
and will fall apart when you get within 10^-38 seconds of the big bang.

The philosophers of science have terms for such theories - conditional
theories I believe they are called because they only are valid under a
limited set (which could be very large) of conditions. However, even in
physics which is the most well understood of the sciences, there are
still holes and areas where a theory may fall apart.

People have been pursing the 'holy grail" of physics - the unified
theory since the time when Neils Bohr showed that even our very concepts
of physical reality comes into question at the atomic level. Einstein
died a frustrated man in this pursuit. Now a new generation of 
physicists and mathematicians, with people like Brian Green leading the 
way are chasing the holy grail. He, BTW,  has a wonderful book called 
"The Elegant Universe" about the current state of the art. Mother nature 
tends to like to hide her inner most secrets and I suspect that there 
will have to be a lot of refinement to string theory (the latest attemp) 
 until it meets the muster (if it ever does) of the rigors of making 
accurate predictions required by the scientific method - a process that 
goes back to Sir Issac Newton of course.

Truman

Sisu West Ranch wrote:

> "...Actually the science the space shuddle was based on is old - most 
> goes
> back to Newton..."
>
> Another example of how science works. Starting about 100 years ago, 
> physicists started to make some observations that were not in line 
> with Newton. For example, Newton says that Velocity is equal to the 
> product of time and acceleration. As a result of the work by Einstein, 
> Plank, Heisenberg and a bunch of other scientists we now know that if 
> the Velocity (speed) is fast enough it no longer depends just on 
> acceleration. This is what predicts that the speed of light is the 
> maximum velocity that can be observed.
>
> Does this mean that Newton was wrong? Yes, but his good science still 
> is useful and gets the space shuttle back and forth. If we try to make 
> the shuttle go almost as fast as light, say to get to a star in a 
> reasonable time, we will have to take the limitations of Newton's 
> science into account.
>
> Ed
> Ed & Wendy Hauser
> 2994 Mittower Road
> Victor, MT 59875
>
> (406) 642-9640
>
> ranch@xxxxxxxxxxx



--

"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. The opposite
of a profound truth may well be another profound truth."    Niels Bohr
-- Nobel Laureate, Physics





=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp

Ride Long and Ride Safe!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=