What is the process for developing new physical laws?

In summary: Hamilton's Quaternions had been around for ages before they were found to be useful for describing the structure of space. A lot of the 'new' science is in fact very old maths applied in a new way. And some very old maths is still very useful, because it describes relationships that are still important.In summary, applying mathematics to real-world phenomena involves creating a model, testing its implications through mathematical manipulation, and comparing with observation and established physical laws. If discrepancies arise, a new model or type of mathematics may be required. The situation with quantum mechanics and gravity suggests the need for a new model that can accommodate current evidence and may require new mathematical concepts. However, it is unlikely that completely new mathematics would be needed, as existing math
  • #1
Sho Kano
372
3
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
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Sho Kano said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
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
 
  • #4
Sho Kano said:
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
 
  • #5
Sho Kano said:
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.
 
  • #6
Ah okay I see now, force is needed to accelerate it from rest.

Momentum is how much oomph it has
 
  • #7
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.
 
  • #8
phinds said:
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?
 
  • #9
Sho Kano said:
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 :smile:)
 
  • #10
Sho Kano said:
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.
 
  • #11
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
 
  • #12
Sho Kano said:
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.
 
  • #13
phinds said:
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.
 

1. What is the overall process for developing new physical laws?

The process for developing new physical laws involves several steps. First, scientists gather data through observations, experiments, and mathematical models. Then, they analyze the data to identify patterns and relationships. Next, they develop hypotheses to explain these patterns. These hypotheses are then tested through further experiments and observations. If the results support the hypothesis, it may be considered a new physical law. This process is iterative and may involve multiple revisions and refinements before a new physical law is accepted by the scientific community.

2. How do scientists ensure that newly developed physical laws are accurate?

Scientists use a rigorous process of testing and peer review to ensure the accuracy of newly developed physical laws. This involves replicating experiments and observations to verify results, as well as subjecting findings to scrutiny by other experts in the field. Additionally, scientists strive to make their methods and data transparent and reproducible, allowing for further verification and refinement of the new physical law.

3. What factors influence the development of new physical laws?

The development of new physical laws is influenced by many factors, including advances in technology, new discoveries, and changes in scientific understanding or theories. It can also be influenced by societal and cultural factors, such as funding priorities and public interest in certain areas of research. Collaboration and communication among scientists from different disciplines can also play a role in the development of new physical laws.

4. How long does it typically take to develop a new physical law?

The time it takes to develop a new physical law can vary greatly depending on the complexity of the topic and the amount of research and experimentation required. In some cases, it may take years or even decades to fully develop and validate a new physical law. However, advancements in technology and collaboration among scientists can help speed up the process.

5. Can existing physical laws be modified or replaced with new ones?

Yes, existing physical laws can be modified or replaced with new ones. This can happen when new evidence or data contradicts the existing law, or when a more comprehensive or accurate explanation is developed. However, this process is not taken lightly and requires extensive research and evidence to support any changes to well-established physical laws.

Similar threads

I Varying laws of high energy physics in inflation?
    • Cosmology
Replies
4
Views
982
Classical Looking for a physics textbook which shows how to develop theory
    • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
4
Views
1K
Admissions Exploring the Universe: Pursuing a PhD in High Energy Physics
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
965
Admissions Seeking Feedback on my Physics Personal Statement for Uni Application
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
3
Views
442
What inspired me to pursue a career in theoretical physics?
    • New Member Introductions
Replies
1
Views
95
I The Feynman way of explaining Symmetry in Physical laws
    • Mechanics
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
Admissions Switching from grad quantitative psych to physics: is it possible?
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
3
Views
785
I Irreversible adiabatic processes & entropy change (clarification needed)
    • Thermodynamics
Replies
22
Views
2K
Is this a good self-study program?
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
16
Views
414
Von Neumann replicator vehicle model
    • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
23
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top