Sentences with phrase «physics as the explanation»

These days it seems like everyone and her mother is referencing quantum physics as the explanation for things some may find hard to believe or understand.

Not exact matches

It ignores the reasons why the machines function as they do — reasons that the explanations of modern physics reduce to simplicities as elegant as they are elusive.

If it is questionable whether mental activity such as the planning and writing of a book can be fully explained by the sciences of physics and chemistry, it may not be so doubtful that life is also resistant to exhaustive explanation in terms of atomic and molecular analysis.

I don't assume automatically that there must be a supernatural explanation for anything, only the things that can't be explained by the laws of physics as we currently understand them.

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.

(Usually, in the science / religion context, this phrase designates a regulative principle that Artigas himself not only endorses but regards as «trivially» obvious: «You should not introduce divine action as an explanation in problems of physics or biology.»)

As this example illustrates, explanation in modern physics is almost entirely in terms of mathematical structure and involves an enormously rich set of ideas about form.

Physics has had enormous success in explaining why things happen as they do in the natural world, but its modes of explanation do not fit neatly into the four-fold classification of material, formal, efficient, and final causes.

Our science kits - I majored in physics in university, and the Walter Kraul science kits that we carry from Germany are absolutely inspirational; they are about a hundred times better than any of the «Follow Step 1 -2-3» and discard a hunk - of - junk in - a-flashy-box science kits you'll find out there, as they offer dozens of different ways to explore and think about what you've built or what you're observing, with excellent booklets with probing questions, offering different levels of explanation or exploration, depending on the child.

«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.

Meitner and Frisch were able to provide an explanation for what he saw that would revolutionize the field of nuclear physics: A uranium nucleus could split in half — or fission, as they called it — producing two new nuclei, called fission fragments.

This is, however, far from a complete explanation, and the Nobel prizewinning physicist Richard Feynman described the result as the «central mystery» of quantum physics.

The researchers, including Caltech Professor of Physics Jamie Bock and Caltech Senior Postdoctoral Fellow Michael Zemcov, say that the best explanation is that the cosmic light — described in a paper published November 7 in the journal Science — originates from stars that were stripped away from their parent galaxies and flung out into space as those galaxies collided and merged with other galaxies.

Above the surface of the sun, plasma roiling in the star's atmosphere does something that so far defies explanation, and seems to defy physics: It gets hotter as it moves farther out.

The achievement confirms the standard model of physics and can potentially lead to explanations as to how mass in the Universe came to be.

Scientifically, some sort of explanation as to the sequence of events is expected at the mechanistic levels of eg physics, chemistry or biology.

I will ignore your simple denial of basic physics about CO2 as you don't offer any explanation for your misimpression that I can address for you.

As with the second law arguments, one has to know quite a bit of detail to see where they have tweaked real physics to create their sleight of hand explanations.

I'm sorry you find it too difficult to follow explanations from the our real world and our real world physics of energy and matter, but as it's clearly upsetting you, and I hope you won't be offended by this, I do suggest a break from these discussions would be salubrious for you.

I believe I understand the mechanisms related to the Heinrich events and have moved on to astrophysics problems looking for an explanation as to how the sun could cause what is observed and looking for observational evidence to understand and support a model for the fundamental physics implications.

As a scientist myself (Chemistry, Physics and Microbiology) by training, I understand and appreciate the explanation of the scientific method.

Physical explanations are not necessarily mechanistic explanations (as we have learned from quantum physics and statistical physics).

It's a clear consequence of the physics whenever you apply the math of the problem, but the conceptual explanations as always can be tricky.

In short, Christy blamed the discrepancy entirely on the models, even though as discussed above, this is probably the least likely explanation, because the model expectation is based on solid fundamental atmospheric physics.