Physics Is What Defines Reality Through Science

Philosophical Foundations of "Physics Is What" as an Empirical Framework

The empirical turn in physics was catalyzed by the Scientific Revolution, where the rejection of authority-based knowledge in favor of evidence-based reasoning became central. Galileo’s experiments with falling bodies and the telescope demonstrated that natural phenomena could be quantified and explained through mathematical laws, laying the groundwork for Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687). Newton’s laws of motion and universal gravitation exemplified the predictive power of physics, while Einstein’s theory of relativity (1905/1915) and quantum mechanics (early 20th century) further redefined the boundaries of empirical validity by introducing non-intuitive yet experimentally verified frameworks.

Historical Context: From Aristotelian Speculation to Empirical Physics

"Philosophy is written in this grand book—the universe—which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics." —Galileo Galilei, The Assayer (1623)

Physics as an Empirical Framework: Falsifiability, Reproducibility, and the Scientific Method

Reproducibility ensures that experiments yield consistent results across independent trials, a cornerstone of empirical validity. The 2012 Higgs boson discovery at CERN exemplified this, with multiple detectors (ATLAS, CMS) confirming the particle’s existence. Without reproducibility, physics would lack objective standards for truth.

"All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike—and yet it is the most precious thing we have." —Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions (1954)

Descriptive vs. Predictive Physics: Classical Mechanics and Quantum Theory

Paradigm Shifts in Physics: Redefining the Boundaries of "What Physics Is"

1. Copernican Revolution (1543)
   
2. Shift: Heliocentrism replaced geocentrism, introducing a mathematical universe.
3. Empirical Impact: Kepler’s laws (1609/1619) quantified planetary motion, requiring physics to account for celestial mechanics beyond Aristotelian qualifiers.
4. Key Figure: Nicolaus Copernicus (De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium).
5. Newtonian Synthesis (1687)
   
6. Shift: Unified terrestrial and celestial mechanics under universal laws (Principia).
7. Empirical Impact: Physics became a predictive science, with calculus as its language. However, it assumed absolute space/time, later challenged by relativity.
8. Key Figure: Isaac Newton.
9. Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics (1824–1877)
   
10. Shift: Introduced entropy, probability, and macroscopic laws from microscopic interactions.
11. Empirical Impact: Physics expanded to include irreversible processes (e.g., heat engines), requiring probabilistic frameworks (Boltzmann’s H-theorem).
12. Key Figures: Sadi Carnot, Ludwig Boltzmann, James Clerk Maxwell.
13. Relativity (1905/1915)
    
14. Shift: Replaced Newtonian absolute space/time with spacetime as a dynamic fabric.
15. Empirical Impact: Redefined mass-energy equivalence (E = mc²), gravitational lensing, and black hole physics. Falsified via Mercury’s perihelion and GPS satellite corrections.
16. Key Figures: Albert Einstein, Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré.
17. Quantum Mechanics (1900–1930)
    
18. Shift: Discrete energy levels, wave-particle duality, and probabilistic interpretation.
19. Empirical Impact: Explained atomic spectra (Bohr, 1913), electron diffraction (Davisson-Germer, 1927), and quantum computing (1980s–present). Challenges classical determinism.
20. Key Figures: Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger.
21. Quantum Field Theory and Standard Model (1927–1970s)
    
22. Shift: Unified quantum mechanics with special relativity, introducing particle physics.
23. Empirical Impact: Predicted quarks, Higgs boson, and electroweak unification. Confirmed via particle colliders (LHC, 2012).
24. Key Figures: Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, Sheldon Glashow, Steven Weinberg.

25. 

    Core Principles and Definitions in Physics

    Physics establishes its empirical framework through axiomatic principles that define observable phenomena without metaphysical dependencies. These principles—conservation laws, symmetry principles, and fundamental forces—serve as the operational "what" of the discipline, grounding predictions in measurable interactions rather than speculative interpretations. The mathematical formalism of physics further refines this framework, translating empirical observations into structured abstractions that remain agnostic to ontological claims.

    The foundational axioms of physics function as constraints on possible states and transformations within systems. Conservation laws (e.g., energy, momentum, charge) emerge from Noether’s theorem, linking symmetries to invariants, while symmetry principles (e.g., Lorentz invariance, gauge symmetry) dictate the form of physical laws. These axioms are not derived from first principles but are empirically validated through experimental consistency, ensuring their role as descriptive rather than explanatory constructs.
    

    Foundational Axioms: Conservation Laws and Symmetry Principles

    Conservation laws represent invariants under specific transformations, reflecting deeper symmetries in nature. For instance, the conservation of energy stems from time-translation symmetry, while angular momentum conservation arises from rotational symmetry. These laws are not assumptions but consequences of the mathematical structure of physical theories, as demonstrated by Noether’s theorem, which establishes a direct correspondence between continuous symmetries and conserved quantities.

    Symmetry principles further constrain the form of physical laws. Gauge symmetry in quantum electrodynamics (QED) ensures local phase invariance, while Lorentz symmetry in special relativity enforces the constancy of the speed of light. These symmetries are not arbitrary but are empirically validated through experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment for Lorentz symmetry or the precision tests of QED in particle accelerators.
    

    Fundamental Forces and Their Properties

    The four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force—govern all known interactions in the universe. Their properties are summarized below, emphasizing their empirical basis and mathematical formalization.
    

    Force Type	Carrier Particle	Relative Strength (at 10-18 m)	Key Experimental Evidence
    Gravity	Graviton (hypothetical)	~10-38 (weakest)	Orbital mechanics (e.g., planetary motion), gravitational lensing, LIGO detections of gravitational waves
    Electromagnetism	Photon	~1036	Coulomb’s law, Faraday’s law of induction, quantum Hall effect, electron diffraction
    Strong Nuclear Force	Gluon	~1038 (strongest at short range)	Nuclear binding energy (e.g., deuterium stability), quark confinement in particle colliders
    Weak Nuclear Force	W±, Z0 bosons	~10-13	Beta decay (neutron → proton + electron + antineutrino), neutrino oscillation experiments

    The relative strengths of these forces vary with distance and energy scales, with gravity dominating at macroscopic levels and the strong force binding quarks at subatomic scales. Their unification in the Standard Model of particle physics demonstrates how empirical observations constrain theoretical frameworks, ensuring that the "what" of physics remains rooted in measurable phenomena.
    

    Mathematical Formalism as the Empirical Framework

    The mathematical formalism of physics—equations, tensors, Lagrangians, and Hamiltonians—serves as the primary tool for describing physical systems without invoking metaphysical interpretations. For example, the Euler-Lagrange equations derive from the principle of least action, which states that physical systems evolve to minimize a functional (the action) over time. This formalism encapsulates dynamics without requiring an underlying "mechanism," as it operates purely on the relationship between observables and their transformations.

    Consider the Lagrangian formalism in classical mechanics:

    \( \mathcal{L} = T - V \),
    where \( T \) is kinetic energy and \( V \) is potential energy. The Euler-Lagrange equation,
    \( \frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{q}_i}\right) - \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial q_i} = 0 \),
    generates the equations of motion for a system. This framework is agnostic to the "nature" of energy or motion; it merely states how quantities evolve given initial conditions and constraints.

    Similarly, in general relativity, the Einstein field equations:

    \( G_{\mu\nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu\nu} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu\nu} \),
    relate the curvature of spacetime (\( G_{\mu\nu} \)) to the stress-energy tensor (\( T_{\mu\nu} \)). Here, the "what" of physics is the geometric description of gravity, independent of speculative claims about spacetime’s ontology.

    The mathematical formalism thus acts as a bridge between abstract theories and empirical observations, ensuring that physics remains an empirical framework.
    

    Phenomena vs. Theories: Observables and Abstractions

    Physics distinguishes between phenomena—observable events or patterns—and theories—mathematical constructs that model these phenomena. This distinction is critical to maintaining the discipline’s empirical grounding.
    

    Phenomena are the "what" of physics: black holes (detected via gravitational waves and accretion disks), superconductivity (measured through zero electrical resistance), or the photoelectric effect (observed as electron emission under light exposure). These are direct or indirect observations constrained by experimental limits.

    Theories are the "how" of physics: general relativity (a geometric theory of gravity), quantum field theory (a framework for particle interactions), or statistical mechanics (a probabilistic description of thermodynamic systems). Theories are not phenomena but tools to predict and explain them. For example:
    

    Black holes (phenomenon) are inferred from observations of stellar orbits (e.g., Sgr A* at the Milky Way’s center) and gravitational wave events (LIGO/Virgo collaborations).

    General relativity (theory) provides the mathematical framework to describe black holes as solutions to Einstein’s equations, such as the Schwarzschild metric for non-rotating black holes:

    \( ds^2 = -\left(1 - \frac{2GM}{c^2 r}\right) c^2 dt^2 + \left(1 - \frac{2GM}{c^2 r}\right)^{-1} dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega^2 \).

    The theory does not "explain" black holes in a metaphysical sense but offers a predictive structure consistent with observations. This separation ensures that physics remains focused on the empirical "what"—observables and their mathematical descriptions—without conflating them with untestable ontological claims.
    

    Physics as a Language: Describing the Universe Through Mathematical Syntax and Empirical Semantics

    Physics operates as a precise, universal language designed to encode the rules governing natural phenomena. Its syntax is rooted in mathematical formalism—equations, operators, and symbolic representations—while its semantics derive from empirical validation through experimentation and observation. Unlike natural languages, which evolve organically through cultural and contextual use, physics employs a structured, axiomatic framework where each term, unit, and constant carries a well-defined meaning. This duality ensures that physical laws are both abstractly elegant and experimentally verifiable, bridging the gap between theoretical constructs and observable reality.

    The effectiveness of physics as a language lies in its ability to translate qualitative observations into quantitative relationships. For instance, everyday experiences like heat transfer are formalized through thermodynamic entropy, where macroscopic perceptions (e.g., "a room feels warm") are mapped to microscopic statistical mechanics. Similarly, the concept of "force" in classical mechanics emerges from observations of motion and interaction, later quantified via Newton’s laws. This translation process relies on a shared lexicon of units, dimensions, and fundamental constants—elements that serve as the alphabet of physical description.
    

    Mathematical Syntax: Units, Dimensions, and Constants as the Alphabet of Physics

    The foundational elements of physics’ language include units, dimensions, and constants, which provide the necessary precision to describe physical quantities unambiguously. Units (e.g., meters, kilograms, seconds) establish a standardized framework for measurement, while dimensions (e.g., length [L], mass [M], time [T]) categorize physical properties into hierarchical relationships. Constants, such as Planck’s constant (h) or the speed of light (c), act as invariant reference points that anchor theoretical models to empirical reality.

    Below is a responsive table listing five fundamental constants, their roles, and experimental measurement methods:
    

    Name	Symbol	Value (SI Units)	Role in Physics	Experimental Measurement Method
    Speed of Light in Vacuum	c	299,792,458 m/s (exact, defined by meter)	Maximal speed of all massless particles; defines spacetime metric in relativity.	Time-of-flight measurements (e.g., laser interferometry, atomic clocks).
    Planck’s Constant	h	6.62607015 × 10⁻³⁴ J⋅s (exact, defined by kilogram)	Quantizes energy in quantum mechanics; links action to observable phenomena.	Josephson effect (superconducting junctions) and AC Josephson voltage standard.
    Gravitational Constant	G	6.67430(15) × 10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻²	Determines strength of gravitational interaction in Newtonian and general relativity.	Torsion balance experiments (e.g., Cavendish experiment, modern iterations with cryogenic spheres).
    Boltzmann Constant	kB	1.380649 × 10⁻²³ J/K (exact, defined by kelvin)	Relates thermal energy to temperature in statistical mechanics; bridges macroscopic and microscopic scales.	Gas thermometry (e.g., measuring pressure-volume-temperature relationships in ideal gases).
    Fine-Structure Constant	α	≈ 1/137.035999084 (dimensionless)	Quantifies electromagnetic coupling strength; appears in quantum electrodynamics (QED) calculations.	Spectroscopic measurements (e.g., hyperfine splitting in hydrogen atom transitions).

    These constants are not arbitrary; they emerge from empirical constraints and theoretical consistency. For example, c is not merely a speed limit but a structural element of spacetime in general relativity, while h enforces quantization in quantum systems. Their precision reflects centuries of experimental refinement, ensuring physics remains both predictive and falsifiable.
    

    Semantics Through Experimental Validation: Translating Observations into Mathematical Laws

    Physics’ semantics are grounded in the interplay between theoretical models and experimental data. Observations—whether from particle collisions, astronomical measurements, or laboratory setups—are systematically translated into mathematical relationships. This process involves:
    1. Qualitative Observation: Identifying a phenomenon (e.g., light behaving as both a wave and particle).
    2. Quantitative Measurement: Recording data with precision (e.g., interference patterns in the double-slit experiment).
    3. Hypothesis Formation: Proposing a mathematical framework (e.g., wave-particle duality via Schrödinger’s equation).
    4. Model Refinement: Adjusting the model to fit experimental deviations (e.g., correcting for measurement errors or unaccounted variables).
    5. Peer Validation: Submitting findings to scrutiny via replication and theoretical consistency checks.

    The double-slit experiment exemplifies this process. When light passes through two slits, it produces an interference pattern on a screen, suggesting wave-like behavior. However, when individual photons are detected, they appear as discrete particles, implying particle-like properties. The resolution lies in quantum mechanics: each photon exists in a superposition of states until measured, collapsing its wavefunction. This duality is described mathematically via the probability amplitude ψ, where:

    |ψ|² = probability density of detecting a particle at position x.

    The experiment’s outcome—alternating bright and dark fringes—arises from the superposition principle:

    ψ_total = ψ₁ + ψ₂, where ψ₁ and ψ₂ are wavefunctions from each slit.

    This translation from observation to equation underscores how physics “speaks” through both abstract symbols and verifiable predictions.
    

    Analogies as Bridges Between Abstract Concepts and Intuitive Understanding

    Physics frequently employs analogies to make abstract concepts accessible, though these must be handled carefully to avoid misconceptions. Analogies serve as "translators" between the formal language of equations and the intuitive frameworks of non-experts. For example:
    
26. Waves vs. Particles: Light is often compared to ripples in water (waves) or tiny billiard balls (particles), though neither fully captures its quantum nature. The double-slit experiment reveals that light exhibits both properties simultaneously, requiring a third framework—wavefunctions—to describe it accurately.
27. Spacetime as Fabric: General relativity describes gravity as the curvature of a four-dimensional spacetime continuum, analogous to a stretched rubber sheet bending under a heavy ball. While this analogy aids visualization, it omits key details like the dynamic nature of spacetime or the role of dark energy.

A descriptive illustration of the double-slit experiment’s duality (without visual aids) follows:
1. Single-Photon Emission: Photons are emitted one at a time toward a barrier with two narrow slits.
2. Interference Pattern: Over time, a detector screen accumulates bright and dark bands, as if waves from both slits interfered constructively and destructively.
3. Particle Detection: If the experiment measures which slit each photon passes through, the interference pattern disappears, replaced by two distinct bands—evidence of particle behavior.
4. Quantum Interpretation: The system’s state is described by a wavefunction ψ(x), where measurement collapses it into a definite position. The probability of detection at any point is given by |ψ(x)|², reflecting the dual nature.

Analogies thus function as provisional tools, guiding intuition while emphasizing that physics’ true language is mathematical rigor combined with empirical testing.


Deriving a Physical Law: A Step-by-Step Procedure from Observation to Peer Review

The process of formulating a new physical law is iterative, collaborative, and rooted in systematic inquiry. Below is a structured procedure for deriving a law, using the historical development of Maxwell’s Equations as a case study:

1. Observational Anomalies:


28. Context: In the 19th century, separate laws described electricity (Coulomb’s law, Ohm’s law) and magnetism (Ampère’s law, Faraday’s law of induction). However, inconsistencies arose, such as the lack of a unified framework for electromagnetic waves.
29. Key Observations:
30. Electric and magnetic fields



Physics in Applied Contexts: The Empirical Foundation of Technological Realization

Physics does not merely describe natural phenomena—it defines the operational boundaries and enabling mechanisms of technology. The translation of abstract principles into functional systems (e.g., semiconductors, GPS, MRI) relies on a precise articulation of what constitutes measurable interactions at microscopic and macroscopic scales. These applications exemplify how physics transitions from theoretical frameworks to tangible constraints and capabilities, where empirical laws dictate feasibility, efficiency, and limits. The distinction between classical and modern physics in engineering reveals how evolving paradigms redefine design paradigms, from deterministic mechanics to probabilistic quantum behaviors.


Semiconductors: Band Theory and the Digital Revolution

The operational principle of semiconductors—foundational to modern electronics—rests on band theory, a quantum mechanical framework that explains how electrons occupy discrete energy levels in crystalline solids. In intrinsic (pure) semiconductors, the valence band (filled electron states) and conduction band (empty states) are separated by a bandgap (E_g), which determines electrical conductivity. Extrinsic doping (intentional impurity addition) shifts the Fermi level, enabling n-type (electron-rich) or p-type (hole-rich) materials. When a p-n junction forms, the built-in electric field creates a depletion region, allowing controlled current flow under applied voltage—a principle exploited in diodes, transistors, and integrated circuits.


The bandgap energy (E_g) of silicon (~1.1 eV at room temperature) defines its temperature-dependent conductivity, directly influencing semiconductor device performance. This empirical constraint shapes material selection for applications ranging from power electronics to microprocessors.

Key Applications of Band Theory:

31. Transistors: The bipolar junction transistor (BJT) and field-effect transistor (FET) rely on bandgap modulation to amplify or switch signals, forming the backbone of digital logic.
32. Photovoltaics: Solar cells convert photons to electron-hole pairs only if photon energy exceeds E_g, limiting efficiency to ~30% for single-junction silicon cells.
33. Memory Devices: Flash memory uses floating-gate transistors, where charge storage in the conduction band alters threshold voltage, enabling non-volatile data retention.

GPS and Relativistic Corrections: Spacetime Metrology

The Global Positioning System (GPS) exemplifies how special and general relativity correct empirical measurements to achieve centimeter-level accuracy. GPS satellites orbit at ~20,200 km, where:

34. Time dilation (special relativity): Clocks on satellites tick ~38 microseconds faster per day due to their high velocity (~14,000 km/h), requiring a −7.2 µs/day correction to synchronize with ground clocks.
35. Gravitational time dilation (general relativity): The weaker gravitational field at orbit causes clocks to run ~45 µs faster per day, requiring a +45 µs/day correction.

Without these adjustments, positional errors would accumulate at ~10 km/day. The Einstein equations thus define the what of GPS: the metric tensor (g_μν) governs how spacetime curvature distorts signals, while the Schwarzschild solution quantifies gravitational redshift. Modern GPS receivers incorporate these corrections via relativistic clock models, ensuring navigation accuracy critical for aviation, military, and autonomous systems.


The speed of light (c) is not merely a constant but the invariant that enforces the Lorentz transformation—a mathematical syntax that dictates how simultaneity and distance measurements vary with relative motion. In GPS, this syntax translates to empirical constraints on clock synchronization.

MRI Machines: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and Quantum Coherence

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) leverages nuclear spin states and electromagnetic resonance to generate high-contrast images of soft tissue. When protons (primarily hydrogen nuclei) in a patient’s body are subjected to a strong external magnetic field (B₀ ~ 1.5–3 T), their spins align with or against the field, creating a net magnetization vector (M₀). A radiofrequency (RF) pulse at the Larmor frequency (ω₀ = γB₀, where γ is the gyromagnetic ratio) tips this vector, inducing transverse magnetization that decays via spin-lattice (T₁) and spin-spin (T₂) relaxation. The resulting free induction decay (FID) signal is Fourier-transformed to produce spatial frequency data, which is reconstructed into images.

Quantum Limits in MRI:


36. Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR): Governed by the thermal noise of protons at physiological temperatures, SNR scales with B₀^3/2, incentivizing higher-field magnets (e.g., 7 T research systems).
37. Coherence Time (T₂*): Dephasing due to inhomogeneities in B₀ limits spatial resolution; gradient-echo sequences mitigate this by rephasing spins.
38. Contrast Mechanisms: T₁ and T₂ differences between tissues (e.g., fat vs. water) enable T₁-weighted or T₂-weighted imaging, defining diagnostic capabilities.

The Bloch equations describe the time evolution of spin ensembles, where the precession frequency (ω₀) and relaxation rates (1/T₁, 1/T₂) are measurable "what"s that constrain MRI hardware design—from magnet homogeneity to RF coil sensitivity.

Classical vs. Modern Physics in Engineering: A Comparative Framework

The evolution of physics from classical to modern paradigms has redefined engineering constraints, enabling technologies previously deemed impossible. Below is a comparative analysis of foundational principles and their impact on design:


Application	Classical Physics Basis	Modern Physics Basis	Impact on Design
Bridges and Structures	Hooke’s Law (F = kx) for elastic deformation. Newtonian mechanics (ΣF = ma) for static/dynamic loads. Thermodynamics (heat transfer via conduction/convection).	Finite Element Analysis (FEA) with material nonlinearities. Fracture mechanics (Griffith’s criterion for crack propagation). Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for aerodynamic/fluid-structure interactions.	Transition from deterministic beam theories to probabilistic risk assessment (e.g., seismic design). Use of carbon fiber composites (quantum-scale material properties) to exceed classical strength-to-weight limits. Active damping systems using piezoelectric materials (coupled electromechanical effects).
Quantum Computing	Classical binary logic (0/1 states). Deterministic algorithms (e.g., Turing machines). Thermal noise treated as random but ignorable.	Qubits (superposition: |ψ⟩ = α|0⟩ + β|1⟩). Entanglement (Bell states) for parallel computation. Decoherence theory (quantum error correction via surface codes).	Replacement of von Neumann architecture with adiabatic quantum computing (e.g., D-Wave systems). Cryogenic cooling (mK temperatures) to suppress thermal decoherence. Topological qubits (e.g., Majorana fermions) for fault tolerance.
Laser Technology	Geometric optics (ray tracing). Physics is what endures beyond theories and experiments, a testament to humanity’s capacity to decode the universe’s hidden structure. Its legacy is not in the answers it provides but in the questions it refines—from the conservation of energy to the limits imposed by the speed of light, each discovery reshapes our comprehension of existence. As a language, physics translates the invisible into the calculable; as a method, it demands falsifiability and reproducibility. Yet its greatest achievement may be its humility: acknowledging that what we define today may be redefined tomorrow. In the interplay between observation and abstraction, physics remains the most precise mirror we have to reality, reflecting not just what is, but what can be—and what will never be. FAQ What type of science is physics? Physics is a natural science that studies matter, energy, motion, and the fundamental forces of the universe. It seeks to understand the laws governing everything from subatomic particles to galaxies, using experiments, mathematics, and theoretical models. What subject is physics? Physics is the foundational science that explores the behavior of matter and energy, including mechanics, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, relativity, and quantum theory. It serves as the basis for other sciences like chemistry, engineering, and astronomy. What science is physics? Physics is the basic science that examines the natural world’s physical properties, forces, and interactions. It differs from other sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry) by focusing on universal principles rather than specific systems or living organisms. What happens in a physics classroom? A physics classroom typically covers concepts through lectures, demonstrations, problem-solving (e.g., equations, graphs), and labs where students test hypotheses with tools like motion sensors or circuit boards. Topics range from Newton’s laws to modern physics, with an emphasis on critical thinking and math. What study is physics? Physics is the study of matter, energy, space, and time, including their interactions and the underlying laws that govern the universe. It combines observation, experimentation, and abstract theory to explain phenomena from the smallest particles to cosmic scales. What is work in physics? In physics, work is done when a force acts on an object and causes displacement in the direction of the force. It’s calculated as work = force × distance × cosine(angle between them) and is measured in joules (J). Work is a transfer of energy, not the same as effort in everyday language. applied physics fundamental forces physics foundations quantum-mechanics scientific-method Leave a Comment Name Comment Post Comment Comments are moderated before appearing. The data you submit is processed according to the Privacy Policy of Voltefac.