High School What is the process for developing new physical laws?

[Sho Kano]

Is it applying mathematics to a phenomena in the real world and create a model, test the implications of that model by manipulating the math, then checking that with observation and other established physical laws. If it doesn't match up, then a new model is required or another type of mathematics is needed or even a revision of the old laws.

On a separate note, what is the situation with quantum mechanics and gravity? I haven't learned them yet but I know that they don't agree somehow. They both work for their respective dimensions so there is no need to unite them right? Maybe both of them are wrong and a new model is needed? Or new math? I'm not a physicist or studying to be one, I'm just curious and maybe there can be a discussion

 

[phinds]

They both work for their respective dimensions so there is no need to unite them right?

No, not right. Sure they work in their own domains but the fact that they DON'T work in the other's domain means they are in some way wrong or incomplete and scientists don't like things that are incomplete in that way.

Maybe both of them are wrong and a new model is needed?

very likely, but "wrong" is not the correct way to describe them. "Incomplete" is much more accurate. Whatever new theory is developed, it has to accommodate the huge amount of evidence that says these theores are correct in their currently understood domains.

Or new math?

very doubtful

I'm not a physicist or studying to be one, I'm just curious and maybe there can be a discussion

There have been, at last count, just over 7,000 such discussions here already. I suggest a forum search.

 

[Sho Kano]

Thanks for your answer phinds, it clears many things up.

Also on another note, how would I or you go about developing Newton's second law? I mean just starting from scratch. It seems pretty obvious that the force experienced depends inversely on inertia of the object and directly to the acceleration. Force is made up but I don't see at least at first glance why I wouldn't use velocity instead of acceleration

 

[phinds]

Also on another note, how would I or you go about developing Newton's second law?

I have no idea. I suggest a new thread with that as the subject line

 

[fresh_42]

Force is made up but I don't see at least at first glance why I wouldn't use velocity instead of acceleration

You may use velocity instead of acceleration, but then you get the momentum of an object and not a force. Without a force, an object in motion remains in this motion, which is Newton's first law. It can more or less easily be observed. If we change this momentum, we change the velocity, and this is an acceleration.

 

[Sho Kano]

Ah okay I see now, force is needed to accelerate it from rest.

Momentum is how much oomph it has

 

[Sho Kano]

Well I guess that's about all I have for this topic for now at least. Thanks.

It was a short thread but I'm sure it can help some people pondering about this topic.

 

[Sho Kano]

I have no idea. I suggest a new thread with that as the subject line

One last thing, why do you think new math is unlikely?

 

[phinds]

One last thing, why do you think new math is unlikely?

This is just a guess because I don't think math is the heart of the problem, it's more of a conceptual issue. I could be wrong. (Actually, I usually am, but let's not get into that )

 

[fresh_42]

One last thing, why do you think new math is unlikely?

What should "new math" be? In mathematics, new concepts are added to the existing ones if needed, which are already really, really many. This is not a new math, it is mathematics normal development. A "new math" would mean another logic (which we also already have several kinds), so it's always only an extension. The same as is done day by day around the world.

 

[Sho Kano]

Actually, what says physics has to follow our mathematics? I mean axioms are made up... is it just a miracle? Sorry if this is off topic, I'm happy to make a new thread but I'm scared it might be too short

 

[phinds]

Actually, what says physics has to follow our mathematics?

Physics DOESN't "follow our mathematics", it's the other way 'round. The real world does whatever it does and we do our best to make models that describe it and make predictions about it, but the map is not the territory. In many cases out math models do an incredibly good job of describing the universe as it is but sometimes they break down or are found to be incomplete or only meaningful in a limited range such as was found to be the case about Newton's Law of Gravity which turns out to be a subset of General Relativity and we already know that General Relativity is incomplete and/or limited because of its conflict with Quantum Mechanics.

 

[sophiecentaur]

This is just a guess because I don't think math is the heart of the problem,

I think it would very likely be essential because all Maths is just a way of describing relationships between things. If that proves to be necessary then we may either have to rummage about in what the Mathematicians have already produced or get some tame ones to invent some new stuff. I think a lot of the familiar Maths that Scientists and Engineers use was taken 'off the shelf' from what some (often ancient) Mathematicians had developed.
Fourier developed the Transform long before Electrical Engineers start using it.