Physics Question for anyone who knows Physics really well

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

I was just wondering is there a law in Physics where like something will gravitate or fall into place where it fits? I mean like…ok you know those little hand games where you steady it in your hand and then try to get the silver balls in the corresponding holes. And like the balls will go into the holes if you are patient and calm because the balls fit into the holes.

Or like you know that baby toy where the baby has to match the ttriangle in the triangle hole and the square in the square hole and the rectangle in the rectangle hole…

Well anyway, so is there a law where all things sort of gravitate or fall into their proper place?

2

That sounds like something static while everything in existence is dynamic.

Nothing in nature stays still long enough, including what would ‘hold’ what is falling in place.

3

in nature there is nothing in an improper place.

4

luck :wink:

5

If you look at it in a certain way, I suppose there is. Once the silver balls are in the slot they can’t just randomly jump out again without extra supplied energy, and once the triangle’s int he hole, it can’t get out again unless you open the box.

6

reminds me of semi-conductors

7

The physical “laws” we have in place are simply theories. They are ways of explaining and predicting the observations we make of the world around us. Reality exists, we observe and record it, we analyze it, and we use these observations, records, and analyses to make predictions about other parts of reality.

The only time something really “falls into place,” that I can think of, is when we use the data and analysis to form a new law that works when tested.

8

no

9

Yes

The theory was Aristotle’s and it was Law for over a thousand years.

Not bad. PG

10

Is there an instance in nature where this happens?

Maybe I’m misunderstanding this. I’m imagining a small cube being dangled above two hole - one square and one circular. It’s being dangle directly above the exact mid-point of the two holes. If I let it go, will gravity pull it closer to the square hole??? Is that what Aristotle thought?

11

Hi gib,

I don’t think that Aristotle would have predicted a solution to your proposed problem. One if the weakness in his physics was that it was not precisely predictive, though he did talk about forced motion and I believe he could make general types of predictions.

However, the terminology between his natural motion and PG’s final statement are striking. The following is a quote from:
bookrags.com/sciences/physic … s-wop.html

“natural motion, such as free-fall, resulted from the objects “wanting” or preferring to lie in their natural state”

PG writes:

“… so is there a law where all things sort of gravitate or fall into their proper place?”

Before we get too excited about Newtonian physics being more precisely predictive, I would like to point out that Newtonian physics would also, most likely, fail to predict a solution to your proposed problem. Initial conditions for the string and cube must have tolerances and solution to a gravitational problem with resistance (which is, to the best of my knowledge, not well defined. e.g. in some cases the resistance force is proportional to x and in some cases proportional to v^2) either will not be solvable, or so sensitive to the initial conditions that the solutions could not predict which hole the cube would enter if indeed it would enter either hole.

12

Er - gravity?

13

All right.

BTW, what happened after 1000 years that dispelled Aristotle’s theory? That would be in the dark ages, right?

14

Hi gip,

In responding to your question, I am going to take a little latitude and make a more general response.

The history of Physics is a complex subject, and seeing it through my eyes will certainly be a distortion. Nonetheless, if I stick primarily to gravity, and admit up front that I am probably screwing it up, I will give it a go.

Aristotle lived from 384 – 322 BC. The next person of major impact is Galileo who lived from 1564 – 1642. So Aristotle ruled the world of Physics for over 1800 years.

Galileo’s experiment of dropping a heavy and a light stone from the Tower of Pisa was probably one of the most famous and important experiments of all time. It officially disproved Aristotle’s claim that the heavier stone would fall faster. Furthermore it signaled the beginning of the decline of Scholasticism.

Galileo’s telescope clearly enhanced our sensory ability to understand our world. On the seldom mentioned flip side, apparently honest observers could not necessarily agree on what they actually saw. This is a big deal in critiquing Science as a whole. (Galileo is considered the father of Science and been greatly praised by both Einstein and Newton).

Probably everyone knows of Galileo’s problems with the Inquisition and his defense of the Copernican system. What is less well known is that before Galileo wrote the book “Dialog Concerning Two Chief World Systems” the Pope was a big supporter. In the book, which was started with the permission of the Pope under the condition that it take a balanced look at Heliocentric and Geocentric world views, Galileo ridiculed the Pope, the Geocentric view, and offered an invalid defense of the Copernican system.
(Probably not his finest moment).

[The Copernican system was much more screwed up than most people realize. It continued to use the Ptolemaic system of epicycles. Additionally, it was less predictive than Ptolemy’s original Geocentric view. One other minor point is that the Geocentric view dating back to Heraclites had Mercury and Venus already orbiting the Sun].

While under arrest, Galileo wrote the book “Two New Sciences”. The Church first released this book in an edited version and latter released it in its’ entirety. This was probably Galileo’s best effort and foreshadowed some of Newton’s latter work.

In order to get from Galileo to Newton, history needed to have Rene Descartes (1596-1650) and his Cartesian coordinate system. This allowed for the development of Analytic Geometry which is essential for the development of Calculus.

Newton (1643 – 1727) was the next major contributor to gravitational Physics. I think everybody knows about Newton. His development of Calculus, laws of Physics, and theory of gravity are in my, and I think most people’s, opinion one of the greatest achievements of the human intellect. With the exception of Quantum physicists, most physicists don’t even try to come up with new descriptions of physics without having Newtonian Physics as a limiting case.

In 1905 Einstein (1879 – 1955) published 3 articles in a single publication of the Annals of Physics. One was on Brownian motion, one was on the Photo Voltaic Effect, and one was on the Special Theory of Relativity. It is generally acknowledged that he could have received a PhD degree on the basis on any one of these articles. (I have tried to obtain a copy of that publication, but it is beyond even my means and is virtually unobtainable)

Sometime between 1915 and 1916 he completed his theory of General Relativity. To this day, General Relativity is considered to be the best model of Gravitation with a number of verified novel predictions. (By verified I only mean to say that a generally regarded best test supports his predictions, which, by my analysis in Model Theory, is a very low grade verification).

The distinction between his theory and older theories is that gravity is not a force but a structure of space itself. This of course is an extreme and brilliant departure from all other views on the subject.

There are even more modern theories, such as Lisa Randall’s string theory of gravitation, but they do not rise to the level of generally accepted scientific models at this point.

15

uh what?

guys… things do not gravitate into their proper place

they might however, have a higher chance of staying there, once they accidentely ended up there, than in any other place

16

I am not so sure what you mean by " falling into the proper place", however, in sedimentation or centrufuges, the more massive a particle is, the sooner it sinks to the bottom, in essence, you have massive particles at the bottom and smaller particles at the top, is that proper?

17

Well, maybe if a gravitational field line ran through one hole, then yes, the object would most likely be pulled into or near it. If the hole was extremely dense and contained enough mass to create said gravitational field, but it could be possible.

18

The opposite is true of what PG is proposing…That things become ordered over time due to some force that seeks order, a type of virtue teleology.

Entropy contradicts this, the Universe becomes less ordered over time.

19

yes the law of combinations ( I made that law up by the way but it is still valid) look at water , only H2 and O give water, certain combinations produce certain results because only this certain combination can. and no other combination(s) will. the Universe does have limits.

20

Philosophygirl: I believe you’re pondering the anthropic principle

The anthropic principle is basically used by physicists to explain why things seem to fit into place so coincidentally. Really, it’s more of a philosophical nature- which is why you asked here.

We have a ridiculously bizarre amount of coincidences that were necessary in order for us to come into existence. Not necessarily our details, but the environment which allows us to grow intelligent. It’s so complicated what needs to be done in order for us to exist. It seems as though nature simply caters to us out of desire. But the anthropic principle argues that because anything already happens- well then we had to happen. And if we think it amazing that we’ve gained the chance to exist- well in all places that beings carrying similar intelligence can’t exist, there’s no one there to think of any amazing things about the universe. So naturally- we have the chance to think it’s so amazing, because we as its discoverers can exist only in such places, and only such places can have such discoverers.

If you’re looking to define the opposition- I guess that’d be the non-anthropic principal. Non-anthropic might suggest that there’s a divine or “gravitating” state which governs environment- something that makes things happen, not by the various bings and bangs of the cosmos, but by the logic of similar concepts.

Keep in mind that the logic of things gravitating to each other, in the manner of cosmic law, would not necessarily cater to our human desires. So for example, even if a square peg would not gravitate to a round hole, that is not to say that the universe is purely anthropic. It might instead say that the square peg was meant to fit into something else according to the grand scheme of things.