Observation– a method of studying objects and phenomena of objective reality in the form in which they exist in nature. Observable is any physical quantity whose value can be found experimentally (measured).
Hypothesis- a probable assumption about the cause of any phenomena, the reliability of which, in the current state of science, cannot be verified and proven.
Experiment– the study of a particular phenomenon under precisely taken into account conditions, when it is possible to monitor the progress of changes in the phenomenon and actively influence it.
Theory- a generalization of experience, practice, scientific activity, revealing the basic patterns of the process or phenomenon being studied.
Experience– a body of accumulated knowledge.
Mechanics– a science that studies mechanical movements, i.e. moving bodies relative to each other or changing body shapes.
Material point- a physical body, the size and shape of which can be neglected.
Forward movement- a movement in which any straight line, rigidly connected to the body, moves parallel to itself.
Instantaneous speed (velocity)– characterizes the speed of change of the radius vector of displacement r at time t.
Acceleration– characterizes the rate of change in speed at time t.
Tangential acceleration characterizes the change in speed modulo.
Normal acceleration- towards.
Angular velocity– vector quantity of the derivative of the elementary angular displacement with respect to time.
Angular acceleration– vector quantity equal to the first derivative of the angular velocity with respect to time.
Pulse– a vector measure of the amount of mechanical movement that can be transferred from one body to another, provided that the movement does not change its shape.
Mechanical system– a set of bodies selected for consideration.
Inner forces– forces with which the bodies included in the system under consideration interact with each other.
External forces– act from bodies that do not belong to the system.
System called closed or isolated, if there are no external forces
Direct problem of mechanics– knowing the forces, find the motion (functions r(t), V(t)).
Inverse problem of mechanics– knowing the movement of the body, find the forces acting on it.
Mass (additive value):
1. A measure of inertia during translational motion of a body (inertial mass)
2. Measure of the amount of substance in the volume of a body
3. A measure of the gravitational properties of bodies participating in gravitational interactions (gravitational mass)
4. Measure of energy
Inertia manifests itself:
1. The body’s ability to maintain a state of motion
2. The ability of a body, under the influence of other bodies, to change state not in jumps, but continuously.
3. Resist changing the state of your movement.
Reference systems, in relation to which the free m.t. is in a state of relative rest or uniform rectilinear motion, called inertial(Newton's First Law is satisfied in them).
INewton's law: If a reference system moves relative to an inertial one with acceleration, then it is called non-inertial.
IINewton's law: In an inertial frame, the rate of change of momentum m.t. equal to the resultant force acting on it and coincides with it in direction.
IIINewton's law: The forces with which interacting bodies act on each other are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
Absolute speed– m.t. speed relative to a fixed frame of reference.
Relative speed– m.t. speed relative to the moving frame of reference.
Portable speed– speed of the moving frame of reference relative to
Slide 2
What is a hypothesis?
A hypothesis is a statement that is neither true until proven nor false until disproven, but is used as a working theory. Most often, hypotheses are used in natural sciences, such as physics, and describe the causes of natural phenomena. A hypothesis that has been confirmed becomes the basis for the following assumptions. Hypothesis is a word of Greek origin, literally translated as “foundation”, “assumption”. In the modern sense, an unproven theory or assumption. A hypothesis is put forward based on observations or experiments. Subsequently, the hypothesis can be proven, which indicates the validity of this hypothesis, or refuted, which indicates its fallacy.
Slide 3
Types of Hypotheses
Scientific hypothesis Metaphysical hypothesis
Slide 4
Scientific Hypothesis is...
...such a hypothesis, which explains all known scientific facts based on the use of a mental abstract model of the objects and phenomena of the real world being studied, does not contain internal logical contradictions and, from the analysis of the properties of the model, derives consequences that were previously unknown and can be experimentally verified. After testing the predicted consequences, a scientific hypothesis can be either confirmed or refuted by the results of the experiment. With experimental confirmation of the predicted consequences, the hypothesis receives recognition as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
Slide 5
Scientific hypothesis
The existence of the atomic nucleus Ernest Rutherford
Slide 6
Scientific Hypothesis
Existence of electromagnetic waves Maxwell
Slide 7
Scientists
Isaac Newton Einstein
Slide 8
Metaphysical hypothesis is...
...untestable hypotheses. The impossibility of scientific proof or refutation of a metaphysical hypothesis does not deprive it of its right to exist. Accepting or rejecting such a hypothesis is a matter of a person's belief in its truth or disbelief in it.
American astrophysicist Abraham Loeb, having carried out the appropriate calculations, found that, in principle, the first life could have appeared in the Universe 15 million years after the Big Bang. Conditions at that time were such that liquid water could exist on solid planets even when they were outside the habitable zone of their star.
To some, the question of when, in principle, life could appear in our Universe may seem idle and insignificant. Why do we care at what point in time the conditions of our universe became such that organic molecules had the opportunity to create complex structures? We know for sure that on our planet this happened no later than 3.9 billion years ago (this is the age of the oldest sedimentary rocks on Earth, in which traces of the life activity of the first microorganisms were discovered), and this information, at first glance, may be sufficient in order to build on this basis all hypotheses about the development of life on Earth.
In fact, this question is much more complex and interesting for earthlings from a practical point of view. Take, for example, the panspermia hypothesis, which is very popular today, according to which life does not originate on each planet separately, but, having once appeared at the very beginning of the development of the Universe, travels through different galaxies, systems and planets (in the form of so-called “spores of life” " - the simplest organisms that are in a state of rest during travel). However, there is still no reliable evidence for this hypothesis, since living organisms have not yet been found on any planet other than Earth.
However, if it is not possible to obtain direct evidence, then scientists can also use indirect evidence - for example, if it is established, at least theoretically, that life could have originated earlier than 4 billion years ago (let me remind you, the age of our Universe is estimated as 13.830 ± 0.075 billion years, so, as you can see, there was more than enough time for this), then the panspermia hypothesis will move from the category of philosophical to the rank of strictly scientific. It should be noted that one of the most ardent adherents of this theory, Academician V.I. Vernadsky generally believed that life is the same fundamental property of the matter of the Universe, like, for example, gravity. Thus, it is logical to assume that the appearance of living organisms is quite possible at the very early stages of the origin of our universe.
Probably, it was precisely these thoughts that prompted Dr. Abraham Loeb from Harvard University (USA) to think about the question of when life could have arisen in the Universe and what were the conditions for its existence in the earliest era. He carried out the corresponding calculations using data on the cosmic microwave background radiation and found out that this could well have happened when the first star-forming halos appeared inside our Hubble volume (this is the name for the region of the expanding Universe surrounding the observer, outside of which objects move away from the observer at a speed greater than than the speed of light), that is, just... 15 million years after the Big Bang.
According to the researcher’s calculations, in this early era the average density of matter in the Universe was a million times higher than today’s, and the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation was 273-300 K (0-30 °C). It follows from this: if solid planets existed then, then liquid water on their surface could exist regardless of the degree of their distance from their sun. If we explain this using the example of objects in our solar system, then endless oceans could splash freely on Uranus’s satellite Triton, and on Jupiter’s satellite Europa, and on the famous Saturnian Titan, and even on dwarf planets like Pluto and objects from the Oort cloud (subject to the presence of the latter have sufficient gravity to hold water masses)!
Thus, it turns out that already 15 million years after the birth of the Universe there were all the conditions for life to arise on some planets - after all, the presence of water is the main condition for the beginning of the process of formation of complex organic molecules from simple components. True, Dr. Loeb notes that there is one “but” in his constructions. A date of 15 million years from the Big Bang corresponds to the redshift parameter z (it determines the magnitude of the displacement relative to the point where the observer is located) with a value of 110. And according to previous calculations, the time of appearance of heavy elements in the Universe, without which the formation of rocky planets is impossible, corresponds to z value equal to 78, and this is already 700 million years after the same Big Bang. In other words, there was nothing for liquid water to exist on then, since there were no solid planets themselves.
However, Abraham Loeb notes, this is exactly the picture that emerges if we accept that the distribution of matter 15 million years after the birth of our universe was Gaussian (that is, normal). However, it is quite possible that it was completely different in those days. And if so, then the likelihood that somewhere in the Universe there were already systems with rocky planets increases very, very much. Proof of this assumption can be found in objects that astronomers often find lately - these are stars and galaxies whose age is much younger than the end of the reionization era (after which the appearance of heavy elements began).
Thus, if Dr. Loeb's calculations are correct, then it turns out that life could have arisen on literally every planet in the early Universe. Moreover, it turns out that the first planetary systems should be filled with it almost “to capacity”, since at least some of these planets retained their potential suitability for life for a very long time. Well, since no one can still refute the potential possibility of transfer of living organisms and their spores by meteorites and comets, it is logical to assume that in this case, even after the temperature of the relict radiation dropped, these “pioneers of life” could colonize other planetary bodies even before the death of their primary biospheres - after all, fortunately, the distances between planetary systems at that time were many times smaller than today.
HYPOTHESIS
HYPOTHESIS
Philosophy: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki. Edited by A.A. Ivina. 2004 .
HYPOTHESIS
(from the Greek hypothesis - basis, basis)
a well-thought-out assumption, expressed in the form of scientific concepts, which should, in a certain place, fill the gaps of empirical knowledge or connect various empirical knowledge into a whole, or give a preliminary explanation of a fact or group of facts. A hypothesis is scientific only if it is confirmed by facts: “Hypotheses non fingo” (Latin) – “I do not invent hypotheses” (Newton). A hypothesis can exist only as long as it does not contradict reliable facts of experience, otherwise it becomes simply a fiction; it is verified (tested) by the relevant facts of experience, especially experiment, obtaining truths; it is fruitful as a heuristic or if it can lead to new knowledge and new ways of knowing. “The essential thing about a hypothesis is that it leads to new observations and investigations, whereby our conjecture is confirmed, refuted, or modified—in short, expanded” (Mach). The facts of experience of any limited scientific field, together with realized, strictly proven hypotheses or connecting, the only possible hypotheses, form a theory (Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis, 1906).
Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .
HYPOTHESIS
(from Greek ὑπόϑεσις – basis, assumption)
1) A special kind of assumption about directly unobservable forms of connection between phenomena or the causes that produce these phenomena.
3) A complex technique that includes both making an assumption and its subsequent proof.
Hypothesis as an assumption. G. plays a dual role: either as an assumption about one or another form of connection between observed phenomena, or as an assumption about the connection between observed phenomena and internal ones. the basis that produces them. G. of the first kind are called descriptive, and of the second - explanatory. As a scientific assumption, G. differs from an arbitrary guess in that it satisfies a number of requirements. The fulfillment of these requirements forms the consistency of the G. The first condition: the G. must explain the entire range of phenomena for the analysis of which it is put forward, if possible without contradicting previously established ones. facts and scientific provisions. However, if the explanation of these phenomena on the basis of consistency with known facts fails, statements are put forward that enter into agreement with previously proven positions. This is how many foundations arose. G. science.
The second condition: the fundamental verifiability of G. A hypothesis is an assumption about a certain directly unobservable basis of phenomena and can be verified only by comparing the consequences derived from it with experience. The inaccessibility of consequences to experimental verification means the unverifiability of G. It is necessary to distinguish between two types of unverifiability: practical. and principled. The first is that the consequences cannot be verified at the given level of development of science and technology, but in principle their verification is possible. G. that are practically unverifiable at the moment cannot be discarded, but they must be put forward with a certain caution; cannot concentrate his fundamentals. efforts to develop such G. The fundamental unverifiability of G. lies in the fact that it cannot give consequences that can be compared with experience. A striking example of a fundamentally untestable hypothesis is provided by the explanation proposed by Lorenz and Fitzgerald for the absence of an interference pattern in the Michelson experiment. The reduction in the length of any body assumed by them in the direction of its movement cannot in principle be detected by any measurement, because Together with the moving body, the scale ruler also experiences the same contraction, with the help of which the cut will be made. G., which do not lead to any observable consequences, except those for which they are specifically put forward to explain, and will be fundamentally unverifiable. The requirement for the fundamental verifiability of G. is, in the very essence of the matter, a deeply materialistic requirement, although it tries to use it in one’s own interests, especially one that empties the content from the requirement of verifiability, reducing it to the notorious beginning of fundamental observability (see Verifiability principle) or to the requirement of an operationalist definition of concepts (see Operationalism). Positivist speculation on the requirement of fundamental verifiability should not lead to declaring this very requirement to be positivist. The fundamental verifiability of a system is an extremely important condition for its consistency, directed against arbitrary constructions that do not allow any external detection and do not manifest themselves in any way outside.
The third condition: the applicability of G. to the widest possible range of phenomena. G. should be used to deduce not only those phenomena for which it is specifically put forward to explain, but also possibly wider phenomena that would seem to be not directly related to the original ones. Because it represents a single coherent whole and the separate exists only in that connection that leads to the general, G., proposed to explain the cl.-l. a relatively narrow group of phenomena (if it correctly covers them) will certainly prove to be valid for explaining some other phenomena. On the contrary, if G. does not explain anything except that specific one. group of phenomena, for the understanding of which it was specially proposed, this means that it does not grasp the general basis of these phenomena, what it means. its part is arbitrary. Such G. are hypothetical, i.e. G., put forward exclusively and only to explain this, are few in number. groups of facts. For example, quantum theory was originally proposed by Planck in 1900 to explain one relatively narrow group of facts—black body radiation. Basic The assumption of this theory about the existence of discrete portions of energy - quanta - was unusual and sharply contradicted the classical one. ideas. However, the quantum theory, for all its unusualness and the apparent ad hoc nature of the theory, turned out to be capable of subsequently explaining an exceptionally wide range of facts. In the particular region of black body radiation, it found a common basis that reveals itself in many other phenomena. This is exactly the nature of scientific research. G. in general.
Fourth condition: the greatest possible fundamental simplicity of G. This should not be understood as a requirement for ease, accessibility or simplicity of mathematics. forms G. Valid. G.'s simplicity lies in its ability, based on a single basis, to explain as wide a range of different phenomena as possible, without resorting to the arts. constructions and arbitrary assumptions, without putting forward in each new case more and more new G. ad hoc. Simplicity of scientific G. and theories have a source and should not be confused with the subjectivist interpretation of simplicity in the spirit, for example, of the principle of economy of thinking. In understanding the objective source of simplicity scientific. theories there is a fundamental difference between metaphysical. and dialectical materialism, which proceeds from the recognition of the inexhaustibility of the material world and rejects metaphysics. belief in some abs. simplicity of nature. The simplicity of geometry is relative, since the “simplicity” of the phenomena being explained is relative. Behind the apparent simplicity of the observed phenomena, their inner nature reveals. complexity. Science constantly has to abandon old simple concepts and create new ones that at first glance may seem much more complex. The task is not to stop at stating this complexity, but to move on, to reveal that inner. unity and dialectic. contradictions, that common connection, edge lies at the heart of this complexity. Therefore, with further progress of knowledge, new theoretical theories. constructions necessarily acquire fundamental simplicity, although not coinciding with the simplicity of the previous theory. Compliance with basic conditions of consistency of a hypothesis do not yet turn it into a theory, but in their absence, the assumption cannot at all claim to be a scientific one. G.
Hypothesis as a conclusion. G.'s inference consists in transferring the subject from one judgment, which has a given predicate, to another, which has a similar and some unknown yet. M. Karinsky was the first to draw attention to G. as a special conclusion; The advancement of any G. always begins with the study of the range of phenomena for which this G. is created to explain. With logical point of view, this means that the formulation of a set judgment for the construction of a group occurs: X is P1 and P2 and P3, etc., where P1, P2 are the signs of the group of phenomena being studied discovered by research, and X is the yet unknown bearer of these signs (their ). Among the available judgments, one is looking for one that, if possible, would contain the same particular predicates P1, P2, etc., but with an already known subject (): S is P1 and P2 and P3, etc. From the two available judgments the conclusion is drawn: X is P1 and P2 and P3; S is P1 and P2 and P3, therefore X = S.
The given inference is G.’s inference (in this sense, a hypothetical inference), and the judgment obtained in the conclusion is G. In appearance, it is hypothetical. the inference resembles the second categorical figure. a syllogism, but with two assertions, premises, which, as is known, represents a logically invalid form of conclusion. But this turns out to be external. The predicate of an attitudinal judgment, unlike the predicate in the premises of the second figure, has a complex structure and, to a greater or lesser extent, turns out to be specific, which gives the possibility of qualities. assessing the probability that if the predicates coincide, there is similarity in the subjects. It is known that in the presence of a general distinguishing figure, the second figure gives a reliable one and, with two, it will confirm. judgments. In this case, the coincidence of the predicates makes the probability of the coincidence of the subjects equal to 1. In the case of non-selective judgments, this probability ranges from 0 to 1. Ordinary ones will affirm. the premises in the second figure do not provide grounds for assessing this probability, and therefore are logically invalid here. In a hypothetical In conclusion, this is made on the basis of the complex nature of the predicate, which to a greater or lesser extent brings it closer to specificity. predicate of a distinguishing proposition.
