Sentences with phrase «in model physics»

Senator Cruz offered only one possible interpretation of these differences — the existence of large, fundamental errors in model physics -LSB-...].

This is a strong argument, why models even not wrong in their model physics (often claimed by some «skeptics») but more to Imput - Forcing (also solar - Forcing).

Why not construct some emissions scenarios that cover what you think might happen over the next 50 (or 100) years, and then run those scenarios through a range of leading climate models, performing multiple runs for each model to capture both the uncertainty in the model physics and internal variability.

Finds inconsistent TC projection results emerge from modeling studies due to different downscaling methodologies and warming scenarios, inconsistencies in projected changes of large - scale conditions, and differences in model physics and tracking algorithms

The fact that our model does a surprisingly good job with simulating the last 400,000 years of global ice volume, with no change in model physics and only one linear change in boundary conditions, argues for the fact that, despite plausible deficiencies, we have done a surprisingly good job of simulating the pattern of fluctuations in ice volume.

Not exact matches

At Tesla, Elon has overseen product development and design from the beginning, including the all electric Tesla Roadster, Model S and Model X. Transitioning to a sustainable energy economy, in which electric vehicles play a pivotal role, has been one of his central interests for almost two decades, stemming from his time as a physics student working on ultracapacitors in Silicon Valley.

Actually, I think it's useful to think of «Big Bang» as a short - hand for «That point in the past when the energy density becomes so high that our current models of physics can't describe what happened».

«It makes no obvious difference to our salvation whether the geometry of our universe is Euclidian, whether quantum mechanics is the last word in atomic physics, or whether the Big Bang is the correct model for the development of the universe.

If physicists come up with a mathematically consistent explanation for God and the model works for everything in physics, then that might be the right answer, but that God won't be the God in any of mankind's religions because all of those God's have been as disproven as gravity is proven.

If there is a basic thesis, it is that Whitehead has used the concept of the electromagnetic field in physics as a model for human experience (PW 125/134, 183/201; RL 285).

Again, they have found a new Higgs Boson particle back in 2012 that exhibits the Particle Physics Standard Model Higgs Boson Particle that is spin - 0, scalar, but not yet proven to be the one.

In the best case, there are a few attempts at providing a new metaphysical and epistemological model where events can exist without a cause, but that's an entirely different thing, which also needs a diferent physics.

And that is true in Bergson's concept of the pulsations of matter, which then is like the 1926 - 1927 quantum physics, and not like the earlier Niels Bohr model of quantum physics where the pulsations are perfectly distinct, going from one electron shell to the other without passing through the intervening space.

Thus I would propose that we should not refer to the Hindu Brahman and the Christian God as complementary models (if some analogy with quantum physics is thereby implied), since they are not used in the same paradigm community.

Within physics complementary models are used in the domain of the unobservably small, whose characteristics seem to be radically unlike those of everyday objects; the electron can not be adequately visualized or consistently described by familiar analogies.

«When the physical model of wave - motion in a material medium had to be abandoned in physics», writes Mary Hesse, «it left its traces in the kind of mathematics which was used, for this was still a mathematical language derived from the wave equations of fluid motion, and so, for the mathematician, it carried some of the imaginative associations of the original physical picture.»

It is not surprising that the positivist finds in quantum physics support for his conviction that we should discard all model; and treat theories as mere calculational devices for correlating observations.

I now wish to look more specifically at the role of complementary models in twentieth century physics, and then at some possible parallels in religious thought.

After describing in some detail the principle of complementarity in physics, Austin suggests that images of God as Father and as Judge are complementary models used to interpret individual and corporate experience.24 The prophet Amos, he points out, interpreted events in Israel's history primarily in terms of God's judgment, while Hosea understood events in terms of God's forgiveness.

I can see a certain parallel with the situation in atomic physics: the use of two models which can not be combined, along with recognition of the limitations of all models and the inadequacy of literalism.

In quantum physics, then, models are only remotely and inconsistently related to theories; and theories in turn have extremely indirect and in general only probabilistic connections with observationIn quantum physics, then, models are only remotely and inconsistently related to theories; and theories in turn have extremely indirect and in general only probabilistic connections with observationin turn have extremely indirect and in general only probabilistic connections with observationin general only probabilistic connections with observations.

However, the use of personal and impersonal models within the Hindu tradition, or within the Christian tradition, does seem to present some interesting parallels with complementarity in physics, which we must now examine further.

I do not see here quite the kind of mutual exclusiveness that exists between particles and waves, which prevents the development of a single compromise model in quantum physics.

Whitehead makes a point of taking a concept from biology to understand physics instead of interpreting biological organisms from models developed in physics.

Much of the reason for the huge decade - long upgrade to the CERN particle - accelerator facility in Geneva - creating the «Large Hadron Collider» (LHC)- was the prospect of finding evidence for one of the keystones in the theoretical edifice that is the «Standard Model» of particle physics, the «Higgs boson.»

Past experiments at CERN and elsewhere (but using lower energies) together with theoretical work linking the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces led to the «Standard Model» of particle physics, formulated in the 1970s.

A process model is a relational model, drawing on the data of physics and biology, maintaining that we do indeed live in an interconnected universe where everything relates to everything else.

In the more difficult areas of physics, such as theoretical nuclear physics or the quantum physics involved in cosmology, the procedure may be deemed a success if there is some convergence between the results obtained from the model and the existing datIn the more difficult areas of physics, such as theoretical nuclear physics or the quantum physics involved in cosmology, the procedure may be deemed a success if there is some convergence between the results obtained from the model and the existing datin cosmology, the procedure may be deemed a success if there is some convergence between the results obtained from the model and the existing data.

Concerning mechanical models, it can be noted that in many areas of physics we now use abstract mathematical representations which can not be visualized at all.

In his Physics, he developed a philosophy of nature (which he called second philosophy) that was a combination of metaphysics as well as empirical science, e.g. his geo - centric model of an eternal universe.

Nevertheless, as we have seen, there is a small but growing number of scientists, both in physics and biology, who operate with a relational model, who see some correspondence between the constructs of the mind and reality itself, however inexact, and who also see the possibility of restoring the experience of meaning if the non-human natural world is perceived as dynamic, creative, full of life and purpose, whom process thinkers have engaged in conversation; together they have attempted to explore new visions of reality better suited for adaptation to the urgent needs of the contemporary world.

John's premise is true in that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, The Big Bang Theory, The Particle Physics Standard Model, Quantum Physics / Mechanics, etc., let alone Darwin's Theory of Evolution, DO NOT PASS the «Modern Scientific Method» when tried!

Apparently this «mosaic model» of the world grew out of Whitehead's earlier work in physics.

Birch and Cobb maintain that the ecological model is more adequate than the mechanical model for explaining DNA, the cell, other biological subject matter (as well as subatomic physics), because it holds that living things behave as they do only in interaction with other things which constitute their environment (LL 83) and because «the constituent elements of the structure at each level (of an organism) operate in patterns of interconnectedness which are not mechanical» (LL 83).

In that revolutionary address he unified geometry and physics into a single set of axioms by symbolic logic.2 While the memoir does not comment theologically, it does propose a theory of intersection points, or interpoints, which in its mathematical abstraction suggests a lucid and stimulating model for projecting Whitehead's understanding of God's relation to spacIn that revolutionary address he unified geometry and physics into a single set of axioms by symbolic logic.2 While the memoir does not comment theologically, it does propose a theory of intersection points, or interpoints, which in its mathematical abstraction suggests a lucid and stimulating model for projecting Whitehead's understanding of God's relation to spacin its mathematical abstraction suggests a lucid and stimulating model for projecting Whitehead's understanding of God's relation to space.

This finds its deepest expression in quantum physics, which has rejected the substantialist model of nature.

Austin shows that the Council of Chalcedon tried to affirm both these models without jeopardizing the unity of the person of Christ, and there may be at least a few parallels which can be drawn with complementarity in physics.

The term originates in modern physics, where both wave and particle models are used for electrons, photons, and other inhabitants of the atomic world.

E. Farber, «Chemical Discoveries by Means of Analogies», Isis, vol.41, 1950, p. 20; M. B. Hesse, «Models in Physics», British 7ournal for the Philosophy of Science, vol.4, 1953, p. 198; E. H. Hutten, «The Role of Models in Physics», ibid., vol.4, 1953, p. 284.

Even the use of complementary models in quantum physics (Chapter 5) does not negate this quest for coherence.

The quantum physicist Max Born has written: «All great discoveries in experimental physics have been due to the intuition of men who made free use of models which were for them not products of the imagination but representatives of real things.»

In a later chapter I will maintain, nevertheless, that even in quantum physics there are models with the three characteristics I have mentioned — models which are analogical, extensible and intelligible as unitIn a later chapter I will maintain, nevertheless, that even in quantum physics there are models with the three characteristics I have mentioned — models which are analogical, extensible and intelligible as unitin quantum physics there are models with the three characteristics I have mentioned — models which are analogical, extensible and intelligible as units.

The enormous range of scales (stars, the building blocks of galaxies, are each about one trillion times smaller in mass than the galaxy they make up), as well as the complex physics involved, presents a formidable challenge for any computer model.

In one model, cosmologists propose that dark energy emerges from the fuzzy laws of quantum physics, which govern the subatomic realm.

Many of us played an important role in helping to develop what became known as the Standard Model of physics, which is our best mathematical description of the fundamental forces and particles.

«The significance of this finding is that it calls into question the validity of certain cosmological models and simulations as explanations for the distribution of host and satellite galaxies in the universe,» said co-author Marcel Pawlowski, a Hubble Fellow in the Department of Physics & Astronomy at the University of California, Irvine.

Computer simulations have become a useful part of mathematical modelling of many natural systems in physics, chemistry and biology, human systems in economics, psychology, and social science and in the process of engineering new technology, to gain insight into the operation of those systems.

The hidden dimensions and colliding worlds in the new model are an outgrowth of superstring theory, an increasingly popular concept in fundamental physics.

W: Certainly the reason people originally got interested in it was that it held out hopes of unifying the standard model in particle physics and general relativity, the theory of gravitation.

Dark matter is not necessarily composed of WIMPs — theorists have identified a host of other possible dark - matter particles — but they are the leading candidates because their presence would close a loophole in the reigning theory of particle physics, called the standard model.