Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14
Like Tree11Likes
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 2 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By PhDemon
  • 2 Post By exchemist
  • 3 Post By Implicate Order
  • 1 Post By Implicate Order

Thread: Can we change laws of physics?

  1. #1 Can we change laws of physics? 
    Genius Idiot Rajnish Kaushik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    168
    i think we can


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Rajnish Kaushik View Post
    i think we can
    Why do you think this?


    sir ir r aj likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    And why do you ask the same stupid questions(*) that have already been answered at great length on another forum?

    (*) I know it is said that there is no such thing as a stupid question, but some people really test that idea.
    RedPanda and keeseguy like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,602
    This man:


    And everyone who is sane says NO!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Trash can, please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Rajnish Kaushik View Post
    i think we can
    Philosophically - rather to my surprise - I think I agree.

    "Laws" in science are man-made theories, generally associated with the name of the person who first formulated them, that have shown themselves to be almost invariably obeyed (except in the cases in which they aren't, which can be numerous). Being man-made, they can be changed. What we cannot change, however, is the order in the physical world that these laws reflect. That order is a matter of objective fact, verified by reproducible observation and experiment.

    Sometimes there can be multiple "laws" relating to the same observations: consider Newton's and Einstein's formulations of gravity for example (though to be strictly fair, I don't think Einstein made any of GR into a "law" explicitly, even though it has more claim to be such than many others).

    But I have no time whatever for cultural relativist notions about science, e.g. the imbecilic notion that the theories of physics would have been different if they had been formulated by women, or that scientific theories are merely a set of culturally conditioned "stories about the world", on an equal footing with those of a tribal witch-doctor. That sort of thing is just a load of post-structuralist sociological posing.
    DogLady and sir ir r aj like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Genius Idiot Rajnish Kaushik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    168
    ok i understood
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679 S, 153.0278 E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by Rajnish Kaushik View Post
    i think we can
    For those that ponder whether Laws may be emergent as opposed to timeless principles of this universe (a relational viewpoint discussed by Lee Smolin in "Time Reborn". Note extracts taken and edited from pp114 - 122).

    If we are speaking from the terms of searching for unification, then dealing with timeless laws poses a big obstacle for this universe as this principle demands a perspective from outside this universe. Alternatively, if dealing with laws that emerge in this universe, one would expect to see symmetries at play. Interestingly this is exactly what Emmy Noether was talking about and emanates from Leibniz's principle that there should be nothing in the universe that acts on other things without itself being acted upon. This is referred to as "The Principle of no unreciprocated actions".

    Einstein used this principle in GR when rejecting Newton's ideas about absolute space. The relationship between the energy-momentum tensor (mass energy density) and the Einstein tensor (geometry) is reciprocated. Geometry tells matter how to move and in turn, matter influences the curvarure of spacetime.

    This principle forbids any reference to a fixed-background and entities whose properties are fixed for all time, regardless of the motion of matter.

    If we strictly abide by this principle and rule out fixed-background structures, then everything evoles dynamically with everything else. What this therefore does is suggest that the properties by which we identify things and distinguish them from other things are simply relationships with other things. Thinking about these relationships with all other things in the universe, then if two things that have the same relationships with everything else inside the universe, they must actually be the same thing. This brings us to Leibniz's principle referred to as the "Identity of Discernibles".

    As a result of this thinking you would infer that there can be no fundamental symmetries in nature. Symmetries arise from the act of treating a subsystem of the universe as if it were the only thing that existed. Symmetries are common throughout physics but in accordance with this rationale arise from doing 'physics in a box' where we treat the box as seperate from the rest of the universe. That's why it doesn't matter if we rotate the subsystem we are studying and that we can safely ignore the interactions between that subsystem and the rest of the universe. Unfortunately however we have a conundrum when extending these laws from 'physics in the box' to the universe itself for in translating or rotating this universe, there is no corresponding symmetry as there is no relative position from 'within' the universe which is altered.

    Symmetries arise from the division of systems into parts. The Laws and the symmetries from this viewpoint are approximates only. As a result, the Laws of Conservation of Energy, Momentum and Angular Momentum according to this viewpoint are approximates as well. These conservation laws according to this rationale 'depend on the assumption that space and time are symmetric under translations in time, space and by rotation.

    According to this viewpoint which is contrary to prevailing view is that 'The more fundamental a theory is, the less symmetries it should have as opposed to vice versa." To those out there that look for unification solutions using covariance as a measure, it may be perhaps wiser to dig deeper. :-))
    Last edited by Implicate Order; January 11th, 2014 at 03:45 AM.
    Ascended, KJW and sir ir r aj like this.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Rajnish is fourteen years old. Cut him some slack.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679 S, 153.0278 E
    Posts
    610
    Well then that's different. Here is my advice then Rajnish. Laws are laws. You respect your mother and father, you clean your room and you be nice to your siblings, and that's all there is to it....and why aren't you in bed anyway? :-))
    PhDemon likes this.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    690
    Oh don't be scaring the child Implicate after the bad press about forums lately... besides if you act like that here ill have you thrown in jail I won't abide by it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679 S, 153.0278 E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by Implicate Order View Post
    Well then that's different. Here is my advice then Rajnish. Laws are laws. You respect your mother and father, you clean your room and you be nice to your siblings, and that's all there is to it....and why aren't you in bed anyway? :-))

    Ok, Mrs implicate has made me come back to apologise...........well sorry then Rajnish............so there.

    I suppose a law of physics can be broken in the sense that it no longer becomes applicable to a region of investigation. That's the challenge in science, a bit like forensic criminology and we like to test our laws to see if they remain valid or not under different circumstances (domains), but a Law of physics is exceptionally hard to violate and that's why it earns its stripes as a Physical Law. A Law is a principle that has been demonstrated time and time again to be applicable to a particular domain of physics. For example Isaac Newtons Law's which were applicable to regions of investigation where things moved slowly and gravitation was like that experienced on earth. Once violated however as has been done by the overthrow of Netwons Laws of Mechanics and Gravitation by the Laws of Special and General Relativity of Einstein, a law is rarely (if ever) thrown into he dustbin. It is simply reduced to being a law that is only applicable to certain circumstances but then the game is on again to find new laws to replace these lesser laws that can extend a principle through a wider set of circumstances and so on and so forth. It is an endeless pursuit of theorising, investigation and observation. Welcome to the forum by the way Rajnish. :-))

    "There (yells upstairs), did you get that Mrs Implicate.....now can I have my dinner? :-))

    EDIT: Oh please fiveworlds, I said I was sorry.....not jail....I can't handle jail....*sobs*....please Rajnish, help me? :-))
    Last edited by Implicate Order; January 13th, 2014 at 08:52 AM.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    690
    Oh don't be scaring the child Implicate after the bad press about forums lately... besides if you act like that here ill have you thrown in jail I won't abide by it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679 S, 153.0278 E
    Posts
    610
    Heh, am I in a parrallel universe or something or is this purgatory? *scratches head* :-))
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. laws of physics
    By lilypad in forum Introductions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 10th, 2013, 09:42 AM
  2. Will there be any more laws of physics?
    By emygirl691 in forum Physics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 6th, 2012, 06:22 PM
  3. The Laws of Physics
    By Golkarian in forum Physics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 21st, 2009, 02:17 AM
  4. Laws of Physics
    By Terry Arceneaux in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 11th, 2006, 07:32 AM
  5. Non-invariant laws in Physics
    By martillo in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 14th, 2006, 01:44 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •