Using the words "Formulate" "To imply" "Explain" in Physics

[slow]

Hi. I ask in advance that you forgive me if my questions are poorly made or are irrelevant. Is the next.

1. Words that are frequently applied to parts of theoretical physics. Formulate. To imply. Explain. Are they interchangeable, that is, can any of them replace one of them in a phrase? Or does each mean something different from the other meanings?

In case of being interchangeable, here the questionnaire ends and the rest does not matter. If not, I add the following.

2. Can I say that the standard model implies the discrete distribution of the electric charge? Can I say that the model formulates it? Can I also say that the model explains it?

P.S. : Usually, I reserve the word explain for cases that allow to ask why and respond with sufficiently evident reasons. Example: explain that a car tire and a straight tube of square section are topologically identical. But science is not based on my habits.

 

[mjc123]

I don't think those words are interchangeable. To imply means "to have as a logical consequence" (e.g. "A implies B" means that if A is true, then B must be true). Thus we can say that Newton's inverse square law of gravitation implies everything that can be logically deduced from it, including e.g. Kepler's laws of planetary motion. To formulate means to express as a formula (either mathematically or in words); to give a law or equation(s) that describes a mass of observed behaviour. So Kepler formulated his laws by coming up with a few principles or equations that described the observed data on the motion of the planets. "Explain" is a bit more difficult, as you can have explanations on different levels. You could say that the planets are observed to follow Kepler's laws; if you ask why, Newton could explain it by saying "Because gravity follows an inverse square law". But then if you ask "Why does gravity follow an inverse square law?" or "How can bodies exert a force on each other over long distances?", Newton's law doesn't provide an explanation.

 

[slow]

Thank you for making yourself present mjc123. Your answer has framed the subject in a way that I can clearly understand. For the reasons you mentioned, they are not interchangeable.

Now I can move towards the second part. Regarding the distribution of the electric charge in identical and unalterable elementary parts, what does the standard model do? Does it imply, formulate and explain it? Or do something less?

 

[mjc123]

Don't ask me, you need a physicist for that. What I would say is that if the discrete distribution of electric charge can be deduced as a logical consequence of the axioms of the standard model, then the SM implies the discrete distribution of charge. If the SM also permits the magnitude of the quantum of charge to be predicted in terms of other fundamental constants, then you can also say that it formulates it. You can also say that it explains it, if you are content to accept the axioms as given. If you want to know why the axioms are true (if they are), you need a deeper level of theory. I leave it to the experts to say whether this can be provided.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Does it imply, formulate and explain it? Or do something less?

If a formula can be stated that describes relationships or allows you to extrapolate outside of the existing measurements then you could say that thing has been 'formulated'. Though where that gets you, I don't know. It doesn't affect the Physics. You 'explain' something by giving a description about the relationship between a number of quantities which justifies some formula or verbal model. Again, this is not a Physics matter - just usage.
I would say that the best way to sort this stuff out in ones mind is to read a lot of sources - not only Scientific - in English and become familiar with the way things tend to be expressed.

 

[slow]

Thanks mjc123 and sophiecentaur. Your messages are clear and instructive. My doubts are solved now. Best regards.