Jump to content
Maniac Muslim Forums
Haku

What Physics do you want to be explained?

Recommended Posts

These days we see a lot of pseudo science arguments for and against Islam. Some times we hear some things in media which raises questions.

As a muslim, what aspects of physics do you want to be explained by a physicist? Why? Try to explain what you are looking for.

 

This thread is for physics only, and it is a re-try of this one. Reason why the first one was closed is because it got derailed.

 

My personal reasons behind this topic is to collect questions that might be relevant to theology. You don't have to ask questions only relevant to theology though.

 

So far I have these two unanswered questions:

 

Shaniqua:

The movement of celestial bodies? The heavens have always been a fascination of Muslims.

 

Mo:

Would a fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh etc. dimensions give the possibility to fourth-dimensional etc. lifeforms which we cannot comprehend due to our three dimensional nature?

 

 

ask away....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, what is the difference in observation of the fringes, in Youngs Double Slit experiment and the Single slit experiment.

 

 

And also does anyone know why light acts like particles and waves

 

Answer if you know please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, what is the difference in observation of the fringes, in Youngs Double Slit experiment and the Single slit experiment.

 

And also does anyone know why light acts like particles and waves

 

Answer if you know please

what is the motivation behind your question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a question related to Quantum physics. I shall come back when I find a way to phrase it :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is the motivation behind your question?

 

err, WAS in my physics paper unit 1, was interested to know what the answer was for the young thing

 

Also, for the 2nd one, I am just interested, cuz Einstein contradicts Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to me a parrallel between physics and theology in that a layman in either field is hampered by a lack of specialized knowlege. With physics this is math. We can imagine quite a bit, but can not prove these imaginings with math. Are the explanations for the untiverse (probabilities) by the physisists acurate to their mathmatical language or are they imagining and trying to fit the math to their conclusions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested in the philosophy of science and in particular, Physics. FOR EXAMPLE, who do we know we know? And how do we come to the rules of the game that say we are taking a certain concept as a given and therefore pushing forward with it as a yardstick by which to measure things.

 

My question doesn't make sense.

 

What I'm trying to ask is- why do we know the things we say we know and then use to forward scientific enquiry?

 

Wrong thread, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested in the philosophy of science and in particular, Physics. FOR EXAMPLE, who do we know we know? And how do we come to the rules of the game that say we are taking a certain concept as a given and therefore pushing forward with it as a yardstick by which to measure things.

 

My question doesn't make sense.

 

What I'm trying to ask is- why do we know the things we say we know and then use to forward scientific enquiry?

 

Wrong thread, right?

No I don't think its the wrong thread. Existentialism challenges physics. Its a good question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

err, WAS in my physics paper unit 1, was interested to know what the answer was for the young thing

 

Also, for the 2nd one, I am just interested, cuz Einstein contradicts Young

short answer:

single slit pattern is due to diffraction

double slit pattern is due to interference between the two (single) slit waves.

 

why light acts like particles and waves: All particles show this wave-particle duality. This is fundemental characteristic of matter. However, due to our limited understanding and observational capabilities, we build up a notion that particles should be only "particle like". Also, Einstein doesn't contradict Young. It was just perceived to be a contradiction in those times, when our understanding was limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to me a parrallel between physics and theology in that a layman in either field is hampered by a lack of specialized knowlege. With physics this is math. We can imagine quite a bit, but can not prove these imaginings with math. Are the explanations for the untiverse (probabilities) by the physisists acurate to their mathmatical language or are they imagining and trying to fit the math to their conclusions?

 

Basically, what we do in physics is building mathematical models to approximate natural phenomena. I say "approximate" because we know that the whole truth cannot be encompassed in to the model. If the model can accurately model the known phenomena, and if it can predict previously unknown phenomena, we know we have a good model. The explanations given by physics is interpreting the model. Some times imagination comes in when interpreting and explaining a model, but it is always accurate to the mathematical model ( i think you call this language). If the explanation is not accuarate, the person is either BS-ing or watering down the explanation for some reason, such as teaching.

 

Good question Owen! Without understanding this point (role of physics), deeper questions are meaningless. Once, an engineer (PhD) told me that e = mc^2 is bid'a (or shirk). Well,... it's not, and such a question wouldn't have even risen if we understood the role of physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested in the philosophy of science and in particular, Physics. FOR EXAMPLE, who do we know we know? And how do we come to the rules of the game that say we are taking a certain concept as a given and therefore pushing forward with it as a yardstick by which to measure things.

 

My question doesn't make sense.

 

What I'm trying to ask is- why do we know the things we say we know and then use to forward scientific enquiry?

 

Wrong thread, right?

 

Good question, and this is related to Owen's question.

 

What do we (claim to) know?

We know what we observe. In the language of science 'observation' means any form of sensing. e.g., registering a sound in a mic is an observation, The intensity of microwave radiation is an observation.

Physics starts with observations. Say, we observe the motion of stars and planets. Then we try to build models, trying to make sense out of what we observe. Some models are better than others. e.g., greeks had some thing called celestial spheres, which they used to predict eclipses and stuff. However, this model could not predict every observation (particularly the ones which were made with more sophisticated instruments). If they tried to modify the model to incorporate the new observations, the model became more and more bulky. It lost the aesthetic element. Newton's model of gravitation was more successful at explaining every thing which has been observed, and it did that with great efficiency. But later newer observations were made, which couldn't be explained easily by this theory.

 

In short, physics is driven by observations. We always verify the theory against nature (or what we can observe of it). Physics is also driven by the elegance of the theory. Some times equally powerful model could be ditched in favor for more elegant theory. Once we have a good theory (which has been verified to some degree), we use that as a yardstick also.

 

I might not have answered you fully. So keep asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it ludicrous to believe in God, and in Heaven and Hell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it ludicrous to believe in God, and in Heaven and Hell?

I don't think this is quite physics related. Try asking this in the general section with more details as to where this is coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JTN wants to know how close CERN has gotten to replicating the big bang and if they've found the "higgin's something or other".

 

And he will think of more questions later :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JTN wants to know how close CERN has gotten to replicating the big bang and if they've found the "higgin's something or other".

 

And he will think of more questions later :)

first question http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Research/QGP-en.html

Higgs Boson is not discovered yet, however we are already seeing good signs for it. But only time will tell...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×