Sentences with phrase «than the physics of»

In fact, the emergence of the formula may have more to do with the properties of gamma functions than the physics of the hydrogen atom, Nachtergaele says.

Not exact matches

In physics, synergy describes the creation of a whole that's greater than the arithmetic sum of its parts.

The D - Wave Two isn't just faster than other computers; it's the first commercially available quantum computer, which uses the fundamental principles of physics to solve problems in a completely different way.

So seek out opportunities to feel dwarfed by something much bigger than yourself and your problems, such as gazing at the night sky, hiking through inspiring landscapes, reading up on the mysteries and grandeurs of physics, or even checking out an awe - inspiring YouTube video if you're stuck at your desk.

More than a decade before he started Tesla, Musk was studying physics at the University of Pennsylvania and then battery technology at Stanford, both key fields for learning how to build an electric car.

That lab complements the Institute for Quantum Computing and the more - than - decade - old Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, both founded with more than $ 250 million of Lazaridis's own money and additional funds he helped raise.

General Fusion's team of more than 50 scientists and engineers are world leaders in fusion technology, with expertise across plasma physics, computer simulation and engineering.

This begs the question though, if god did create the laws of physics, why make them so different than what he used during creation?

Two of the most vaunted physics results of the past few years — the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, and the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss - Italian border — have now been retracted, with far less fanfare than when they were first published.

If you require atheists to explain something physics directly tells you we can't talk about right now, your burden of proof for atheism is oddly far more extreme than your burden of proof for «god».

The simple fact is that if matter can neither be created or destroyed in a normal chemical reaction than how does the «god» come up with something out of nothing... remember matter CAN NOT be CREATED or DESTROYED, so if this god follows the normal physics and chemistry than it could not have created the universe either... it just exists b / c it exists..

Indeed, the equations of physics can even propagate spatially sideways rather than temporally forwards or backwards.

But your knowledge of science is so much less than so many Catholic Priests such as Gregor Mendel (1822 - 1884) the father of modern genetics, Georges Lemaître (1894 - 1966) the person who proposed the Big Bang Theory and Stanley Jaki Born in Hungary, he earned doctorates in Systematic Theology and Nuclear Physics, is fluent in five languages, and has authored 30 books.

The symmetries that characterize the deepest laws of physics are mathematically richer and stranger than the ones we encounter in everyday life.

Paul Dirac, one of the giants of twentieth - century physics, went so far as to say that it was more important to have «beauty in one's equations» than to have them fit the experimental data.

However, the «laws» of physics, the interrelatedness of being within matter that lies at the heart of all natural science, beg the question: Why is the universe ordered as a unity (rather than being random)?

More recent biology and physics have replaced this view with one that asserts that the physical world is composed of energy rather than passive matter.

Modern science has extended rather than radically altered our understanding of the universe, in two directions: the very large, with the expanding universe, and the very small, in genetics and particle physics.

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

In a recent book, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, Max Tegmark, a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argues that the idea of equivalence means that the universe is a mathematical structure rather than a reality merely describable by mathematics.

We know that Aristotelian physics, though a perfect example of «common sense,» is actually less accurate (and much less useful or powerful) than Newtonian physics.

Such a notion as emergence, for example, which is closely allied with the principle of indeterminacy and uncertainty and which was later to develop in physics, actually assumed more credence in physics before it took root in biology and psychology; yet it has more significant implications for the data of the organic and social sciences than for physics.

One needs the corrective of Bergson and James at times in reading Whitehead, however, lest the formative notions of the new physics implicit in his imagery render one's understanding of this creative nexus more external and rationalistic than it actually can be.

However, Whitehead was brought to his metaphysics of relations through the revolution in the new physics; this fact has given to his thought, in designating the nexus of events, more externality than he really means to convey, or should imply.

Or, as he put it with his penchant for startling comparisons: «A priest from Thebes would probably have felt more at home at the Council of Trent two thousand years after Thebes had vanished than Sir Isaac Newton at a modem undergraduate physics society.»

Space can expand faster than the speed of light; this does not violate any known laws of physics.

Yes, I understand that quantum entanglement is not actually showing anything moving faster than the speed of light, or moving at all for that matter, but it does show how little we truly understand about how both space - time and physics and quantum physics behave so if we are making a claim based on a predictor we don't yet understand then there is virtually no chance we might be correct in our hypothesis.

We already have what could be considered faster than light travel with quantum physics sp00ky action at a distance so we already know our understanding of the physics is what is flawed, not that there is some need for a supernatural being to explain the parts of it we don't yet understand.

You seem to think that «faster than the speed of light» is something outside of known physics that needs a supernatural explanation.

Take an intro astronomy class and they can explain in basic terms (using basic concepts in math and physics) how time unfolded and what conditions were — and subsequently why «magical bits of everything» formed in to matter than led to the birth of the dinosaurs... It's ok to open your mind; and perhaps even God was the cause of the Big Bang.

Evolution has more holes than cheese, when you ask questions like, how did this happen in spite of the laws of physics, the answer is I do not know.

For at least 3,000 years, the answer has been that there is «more» to the universe than just the physics and chemistry of the universe.

Even with a BSC in physics I often feel inadequate discussing physics with anyone who has had more than two or three years of grad - level schooling on the subject.

But on the actual subject matter of theology it has no more right to pontificate than it has about physics, and it makes no difference whether the philosophy be existentialism or naturalism or idealism or materialism.

In this concept of existences as teleological processes, Whitehead thought, we find the proper way for the philosopher to perform his task, now that the basic idea of physics has become the flux of energy rather than the particle of Newtonian matter.

Thus contemporary physics supports the proposal made earlier that events rather than solid particles of inert matter are the fundamental units of nature.

While it is true that very suggestive metaphysical arguments can be drawn from the reality of form, the intelligibility of the universe, consciousness, the laws of physics, or (most importantly) ontological contingency, the mere biological complexity of this or that organism can never amount to an irrefutable proof of anything other than the incalculable complexity of that organism's phylogenic antecedents.

Atheists can prove that science exists, that the earth is more than 6000 years old, that their is NO WAY to build the size ark that Noah built and do what is claimed in the bible, again when making extraordinary claims, we need evidence and we know that snakes do not talk, that the laws of physics can not be suspended and that nearly EVERY claim in the bible is false.

There is now an emerging suspicion that the universe is much more amicable toward life and consciousness than we would ever have thought before the advent of twentieth - century physics and astronomy.

The point of this discussion is not to give a lesson in physics, but to help the reader view the universe as composed of events rather than things.

More than this, he was sensitive to the fact that the writing of philosophy's history can be at once technically competent and narrow He praised the «philosophical greatness achieved in American philosophy, from Peirce to Santayana, but he complained of the cultural chauvinism in failing to recognize it.5 According to Hartshorne, «One might about as easily reach great heights in philosophy without benefit of the work done in modern America as to reach them in physics without using the work of modern Germans» (Creativity 11).

And since the «heat shield» was made up of what NASA called «special plastic» back in the day, and since NASA indeed stated that reentry from such a voyage generates temperatures «10 times hotter than the sun», then we can know that one would burn - up upon reentry as do meteors and true physics confirms.

First, to say that this pear has mass might be to say that within the framework of physics and systems of physical measurement and associated units, there is some number m greater than zero, which, to some unspecified tolerance, functions as a parameter in a mechanical analysis of the pear's behavior.

To that extent the formula more or less fits physics and biology, though to different degrees, but more than it does philosophy and other branches of inquiry which directly concern man as a whole, in his totality.

No two men are more significant in the history of physics, or assume more prominent positions in introductory courses, than Galileo and Newton.

From this Stoeger argues that «special divine action» is really a matter of the «higher laws of nature» as they actually function, rather than as we understand them, subsuming, modifying and marshalling the «lower orders of nature»; those of physics, chemistry and biology.

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).

The leading edge of astronomy and theoretical particle physics has called into question the fundamental scientific premise that Everything Can Be Explained, and more than a few scientists have murmured the word «God» out of the corners of their mouths.

For example, the laws applying to living cells are less predictive than the laws of physics and chemistry The laws discoverable about multicelled life are even more distant from the (deterministic) ideal of complete predictability.

Rather than conclude skeptically, however, that process theism is an equally nonsensical alternative to traditional theism, this analysis of the interpoint theory discloses that the logical criteria for verifying God's location in spacetime have collapsed with the advent of relativity physics.