Sentences with phrase «model the physics of»

As Wetzel explained: «By improving how we modeled the physics of stars, this new simulation offered a clear theoretical demonstration that we can, indeed, understand the dwarf galaxies we've observed around the Milky Way.

Phonon, Impulsonic's flagship product, allows the authoring of environmental audio effects like reverb, occlusion, and 3D positional audio by modeling the physics of sound.

«When we are modelling the physics of the oceans and the atmosphere, we do have some fundamental equations.

To figure out what works best, we need to be able to model the physics of different strategies, in different types of cities and in different climates.

Until the so called models can model the physics of decadal and much longer variability — I will take them with a grain of salt.

Not exact matches

The Standard Model of physics predicts that all particles have something of a twin; a matching particle that has mirror properties, such as an opposite charge.

Instead of using traditional macroeconomic models, Rickards prefers to borrow one from physics: complexity theory.

Though the physics are complicated and intricate, the carmaker said that compared to the previous cars, they have improved downforce coefficient of this model by 23 %, increasing 75 % on the road.

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.

For more than a century now economics has been advanced and practiced as a science, on the model of physics and mathematics.

This economic thought models itself on the physics of the nineteenth century.

As all of the relevant rotational times, distances, angles and sizes are known with impressive accuracy, all one need do is apply a bit of Newtonian physics and calculus and let the model run.

Without those, the Origin of Matter is «UNKNOWN» as far as Science is concerned, and The Particle Physics Standard Model is rendered «INCOMPLETE,» mind you what's missing is the «CORE!»

The completion of the Particle Physics Standard Model hinges on that.

It annoys me too much to see another generation of physicist deterred by the dumb, messy patchwork called the Big Bang and other called the standard model of particle physics that hide the basic problems physics ought to deal with.

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).

During the same time period that the theory of evolution has been around we have created computers, sent a man to the moon, done heart transplants, discovered quantum physics, proven entanglement theory, ect but evolution still has no explanation for it and no mathematical model of it occurring randomly and naturally.

The beauty of evolutionary biology is that unlike physics, where you have to take a ton of data to hope that the one model you've got really works, evolution allows you to pull together pieces from hundreds of different areas of search to all support the same theory.

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.

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.»

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.

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.

Mathematicians have developed many mathematical models with very simple rules (analogous to laws of physics).

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.

Within the field of modern science, Thomas also distinguishes between the sciences based on mathematical models which are constructed from empirical data, e.g. mathematical physics, and the «empirio - schematic» sciences which are not highly mathematical, e.g. anatomy.

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 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).

Freud's instinctivistic and biological reductionism led him to a mechanistic model of human beings reflecting nineteenth - century Newtonian physics.

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 space.

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

Let's not talk particle physics yet because most of that is theoretical models describing what we experience.

Perhaps our models of some of the most popular theories will be modified as new data becomes available and our analytical tools become more sensitive, but that hasn't stopped us from building computers, vehicles, and machinery of such diversity, spanning the realms of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc..

Nature is unpredictable, especially at the level of quantum physics; the billiard - ball model is outdated.

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.