I Questions about deriving generic equations/laws from specific equations/laws

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Hallucinogen
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the derivation of generic physical laws from specific equations, highlighting examples such as the relationship between electromagnetism and Ampere's law in the context of Maxwell's equations. Participants explore well-known generic laws, suggesting that general relativity and thermodynamics are foundational, as they govern all physical processes. In contrast, highly specific laws, like Newton's law of viscosity, are noted for their conditional nature, often applicable to particular scenarios or materials. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding how broader principles emerge from more specific laws in physics. Overall, the interplay between generic and specific laws is crucial in the study of physical phenomena.
Hallucinogen
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
I'd like to ask what the most well-known case is of a formula for a physical law being derived from another (or set of others)?
For example, is there a law for electromagnetism that describes a law of electricity and a law of magnetism, which was derived from combining the two? Or any similar derivation? Does Ampere's law have this kind of relationship with Maxwell's equations?

Another related question is, what are the most well-known "generic" laws of physics which apply everywhere, and which are the most well-known highly specific laws of physics? I'd guess the most generic laws are those of general relativity and thermodynamics, since no physical process is allowed to conflict with them? And I'd guess that laws in materials science are highly specific, as they have multiple conditionalities, for example Newton's law of viscosity. Or laws about forces being applied to specific shapes?

Many thanks
 

Thread 'Why would an atmosphere without greenhouse gasses be colder than with them?'

Quick question that I haven't been able to find the answer to. Greenhouse gasses both warm and cool the atmosphere by slowing heat loss to space. But what would happen without GHGs? I read that the earth would be colder (though still relatively warm), but why? Without GHGs the atmosphere would still be a similar mass and still warmed by conduction from the surface, yet without a means to radiate that heat to space. Why wouldn't the atmosphere accumulate heat over time, becoming warmer? How...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Can the Principle of Least Action Unify Different Branches of Physics?
Replies
5
Views
2K
I What is the role of the divergence theorem in deriving local laws in physics?
Replies
11
Views
6K
I What are the "central/axiomatic equations of physics" from which....
Replies
3
Views
8K
I Summary of the fundamental equations/laws
Replies
4
Views
1K
A Derivation of Equation 26 in Bardeen's Four Laws of Black Hole Thermodynamics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Could the Laws of Physics Be Proportional to Entropy?
Replies
5
Views
248
I Non-reversibility of '2nd Law' processes
Replies
3
Views
1K
I Conditions for applying Gauss' Law
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Second order, non-linear, non-homogeneous differential eq.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Question about Ampere's Force Law derivation
Replies
9
Views
2K