Where are the laws of the universe exactly?

[PrimalMinister]

The laws of the universe seem to manifest in space when they are required and then seemingly disappear back into the same space when done. Where are the laws of the universe exactly?

[beecee]

17 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

The laws of the universe seem to manifest in space when they are required and then seemingly disappear back into the same space when done. Where are the laws of the universe exactly?

Do you mean scientific laws? They are simply man made structures that describe what we observe, make successful predictions time and time again. eg: Newton's law of gravity dictates that if you jump up in the air, you will come back down to Earth: we are pretty certain of that.

Or are you referring to Universal constants? Things like the speed of light in a vacuum, at "c" or the gravitational constant, or the fine structure constant.

These are just part and parcel of the nature of the universe/spacetime at the most basic fundamental level. They are what they are, although finely tuned to the extent that any variation in them would see a vastly different universe to the one we currently inhabit, possibly making it totally unfit for life as we know it..

Someone more qualified then me is bound to give you a more extended and probably more correct answer. 

[PrimalMinister]

Well take the laws of flames, when we light a fire the laws governing the flames manifest and when you put the fire out, they disappear along with the fire. Its like the laws of the universe are everywhere but when you try to put you finger on them they are no where.

[Eise]

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

The laws of the universe seem to manifest in space when they are required and then seemingly disappear back into the same space when done. Where are the laws of the universe exactly?

The laws of nature are in books and in our heads. They are descriptions of how nature happens to behave when we are looking. So laws of nature are not required at all in nature itself. We need them, to understand and manipulate nature.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Eise

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Well take the laws of flames, when we light a fire the laws governing the flames manifest and when you put the fire out, they disappear along with the fire. Its like the laws of the universe are everywhere but when you try to put you finger on them they are no where.

What, pray tell, is the law of flames?

Laws are always in place, but (when written out) are in the form of "If...then" e.g. If an object is subjected to a net force, it will accelerate according to F = ma. The lack of a massive object or an acceleration does not mean the law is not present.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

The laws of the universe seem to manifest in space when they are required and then seemingly disappear back into the same space when done. Where are the laws of the universe exactly?

I see you are new here so welcome.

I am responding to both your thread questions since they seem related.

A paper on cellular automata?
I find that subject very interesting.
Your proposal about the universe being a form of CA has been put forward before

I see you are interested in AI but the member details page here is now so much wasted space. Are you a programmer ?

I ask because technology in general and computing in particular has its own corner of Mathematics these days, which has displaced much of the traditional stuff for its proponents. In particular Discrete Mathematics has come to the fore.
You can't, after all, master everything these days.

Anyway I wondered how CA would work in a discrete, but non Euclidian, non linear universe?
I ask because Einstinian Relativity is non linear ie it views our universe as being non Euclidian and non linear.

Back to the question here.

Do the Laws pop in and out of where?

Do you mean something like the fibre bundles of vectors in modern differential geometry?

[Vmedvil]

Well, they are relationships between different action potentials playing out. You can write most of physics as a function of the planck's constant and Speed of light, it just shows what switching between these action potentials are.  In the most basic sense the equations are just detailed ratios between things totally man made but the universe still uses those ratios for conversion. Here is a list of things that are not based on man that spawn out of planck's constant and other constants. 

 

 

[steveupson]

The list seems to be a mashup of length and time.  There doesn't seem to be any pattern or symmetry to it.  

At L⁰ the constants at T⁰ are based on (time mass length), (mass),  (time mass direction current), (length current)

At L¹ the quantities at T¹ are based on (length), (time length)

At L² the quantities at T² are based on (length)

At L³ the quantities at T³ are based on (length)

At L⁴ the quantities at T⁴ are based on (time length), (time current)

At L⁵ the quantities at T⁵ are based on (length) (time mass length current)

I don't understand the relationship between these first two columns and the remaining ones. 

I understand that there are fundamental properties or quantities that are used to express other stuff.  Currently there are only seven fundamental quantities that can be expressed in base units.  Currently, there is no recognized quantity for direction and we use pi, a dimensionless quantity, as a proxy for the property of direction.

[steveupson]

The list seems to be a mashup of length and time.  There doesn't seem to be any pattern or symmetry to it.  

At L⁰ the constants at T⁰ are based on (time mass length), (mass),  (time mass direction current), (length current)

At L¹ the quantities at T⁰ are based on (length), (time length)

At L² the quantities at T⁰ are based on (length)

At L³ the quantities at T⁰ are based on (length)

At L⁴ the quantities at T⁰ are based on (time length), (time current)

At L⁵ the quantities at T⁰ are based on (length) (time mass length current)

I don't understand the relationship between these first two columns and the remaining ones. 

I understand that there are fundamental properties or quantities that are used to express other stuff.  Currently there are only seven fundamental quantities that can be expressed in base units.  Currently, there is no recognized quantity for direction and we use pi, a dimensionless quantity, as a proxy for the property of direction.

 

on edit> change T¹ through T⁵ to T⁰

[Vmedvil]

On 10/8/2017 at 7:53 PM, steveupson said:

The list seems to be a mashup of length and time.  There doesn't seem to be any pattern or symmetry to it.  

At L⁰ the constants at T⁰ are based on (time mass length), (mass),  (time mass direction current), (length current)

At L¹ the quantities at T⁰ are based on (length), (time length)

At L² the quantities at T⁰ are based on (length)

At L³ the quantities at T⁰ are based on (length)

At L⁴ the quantities at T⁰ are based on (time length), (time current)

At L⁵ the quantities at T⁰ are based on (length) (time mass length current)

I don't understand the relationship between these first two columns and the remaining ones. 

I understand that there are fundamental properties or quantities that are used to express other stuff.  Currently there are only seven fundamental quantities that can be expressed in base units.  Currently, there is no recognized quantity for direction and we use pi, a dimensionless quantity, as a proxy for the property of direction.

 

on edit> change T¹ through T⁵ to T⁰

I dunno, exactly how to explain that chart besides those are the number of dimensions those properties express themselves into per dimension of the other like flow rate acts upon three space dimensions for every dimension of time or the current of Maxwell's equation expressed in Length (3) and Time (-3), this has to do with SO(n) groups.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Vmedvil

[PrimalMinister]

I have asked this before but this time I am hoping this time to get some serious answers. Please use clear, consise scientific language using models and maths to explain exactly where the laws of the universe are. Thanks.

[Strange]

In text books.

1 minute ago, PrimalMinister said:

Please use clear, consise scientific language using models and maths

Oh the irony.

[PrimalMinister]

I am listening this time, that is all.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

but this time I am hoping this time to get some serious answers

I think you have blown your chances, there.

Quote

Where are the laws of the universe exactly?

I don't even know what you want to know.

What do you mean by "the laws of the universe"?

What sort of answer do you expect to this question? "Behind the sofa"? "The dog ate them"? "In our heads"?

Where are the laws of the USA? This doesn't make any sense. It is a meaningless question.

[PrimalMinister]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

What do you mean by "the laws of the universe"?

Ok, we have laws that govern things in the universe. Gravity is a law, it governs things, it enforces certain rules that keep us (things) fixed to the planet surface.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, we have laws that govern things in the universe. Gravity is a law, it governs things, it enforces certain rules that keep us (things) fixed to the planet surface.

OK. Lets take gravity as an example.Our best theory of gravity is described by the Einstein field equations:

[math]R_{\mu \nu} - \tfrac{1}{2}R \, g_{\mu \nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G }{c^4} T_{\mu \nu}[/math]

So when you say "where is that", what exactly do you mean? It is there on the page in front of you. You can find it in text books. Some people hold it in their heads. But you won't find it written in space.

So what are you asking?

BTW if you want a good overview of what the equations mean, you can find it here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/

There is some math, but you can understand a lot even if you just skip that.

[litewave]

Laws of physics can be thought of as features/properties of the universe. As such, they are objects that don't exist in any particular place or time but they are "instantiated" (exemplified) in the behavior of concrete objects that exist in spacetime. As another example of a feature/property, consider the triangle: the triangle (as a general object) doesn't exist in any particular place or time but it is instantiated/exemplified in concrete triangles that exist in spacetime.

The instantiation relation between a property and its particular instance seems ineffable (unanalyzable) and simultaneously obvious. In that respect I think it is similar to the composition relation between a collection and its part.

The nature of properties and the way in which they exist has haunted philosophers since the time of Plato.

[Ghideon]

Interesting topic! I'm no expert in the area but have some, rather naive, comments. First some statements that, in my opinion, are applicable to the topic. 

1: There are "laws", "rules" or "mechanisms" governing things in universe. I do not think the universe cares about what I call them and they seem to govern things such as gravity etc regardless if any scientists are around.

2: For a lot of the things in universe scientists have created approximations, or laws, that predicts the outcome of a number things. The approximations are good enough to enable to be useful in lots of stuff used in daily life. 

3: Some old approximations are replaced by better versions. Some old laws are still used but in limited contexts.

Some ideas: I have not yet found any reference to an experiment where the result shows something like "the universe, at this particular place, behaves differently from the rest of the universe". But through history I've seen lots of cases where "The known laws of physics are not applicable, or does not predict the outcome of the experiment. The laws need some adjustments."

A: So, if the OP is about the laws of physics, or "approximations" as I named them above, then @Strange has already given a valid answer.

B: If the OP is about any underlaying principles, the ones scientists are trying to model, then the short answer is "Everywhere". Example, intended to illustrate: Modelling the centre of a black hole is hard and doing experiments inside a black hole may not be possible. Black hole observation seems to suggest that black holes follow what ever principles that are applicable. Whether those principles are modelled by laws in text books or not does not matter.

I'm not sure there is any scientific value to case B. I find case A more interesting.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

You can find it in text books. Some people hold it in their heads. But you won't find it written in space.

Thanks! Intended or not, that comment made me think, +1.

Edited September 23, 2018 by Ghideon
grammar

[MigL]

The 'laws' of the Physics ( IE the universe ), are inherent in the differentiable symmetries of the action of a physical system.

Look up Noether's theorem.

[Itoero]

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

I have asked this before but this time I am hoping this time to get some serious answers. Please use clear, consise scientific language using models and maths to explain exactly where the laws of the universe are. Thanks.

The 'laws of the universe' don't have a physical presence. They concern what we say about the universe.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

I have asked this before but this time I am hoping this time to get some serious answers. Please use clear, consise scientific language using models and maths to explain exactly where the laws of the universe are. Thanks.

 

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

I am listening this time, that is all.

I hope so. 

I would say that the laws of the universe are governed by the four known forces in nature....gravity, Electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. These four forces entail the other well known observational restraints we assign to the  universe/space/time we inhabit, such as the consistency of the speed of light, "c", the fine structure constant, and Planck's constant. 

The following summary explains it far better then I did....

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Au06/Unit4/

Unit 4: The Laws of Nature:
Gravitation, Matter, & Light

All interactions in the Universe are governed by four fundamental forces. On the large scale, the forces of Gravitation and Electromagetism rule, while the Strong and Weak Forces dominate the microscopic realm of the atomic nucleus.

Gravitation binds together all masses in the Universe, governing the fall of an apple and the orbit of the Moon about the Earth. The dance of the planets around the Sun is choreographed by the interplay of gravitational forces. Newton's laws are not mere empirical descriptions, but powerful physical tools we can use to explore the Universe, both figuratively and literally!

Nearly everything we know about the Universe beyond the Earth has been learned from a distance. We cannot directly measure a star, or scoop up a bit of its material to study in a laboratory. We only have to us the light that comes to use from across effectively unbridgable distances. Because light, or more precisely, Electromagnetic Radiation, is produced by and interacts with ordinary matter, what seems at first an insuperable handicap becomes a source of great strength. It is when we began to understand the nature of light, how it is produced and how it interacts with matter, that marked the end of "Astronomy" as a simple cataloging of the heavens as it had been primarily from its very beginnings, and the beginnings of the modern study of "Astrophysics" at the end of the 19th Century.

In this unit, we will explore the four Force of nature, as manifested in Gravitation, Electromagnetic Radiation, and the structure of the Atom. This leads us into a discussion of spectroscopy, the study of how we can "decode" the message of light from space, the basic principles of optics, and how we build telescopes to gather light from space and analyze it.

[Markus Hanke]

12 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

I have asked this before but this time I am hoping this time to get some serious answers. Please use clear, consise scientific language using models and maths to explain exactly where the laws of the universe are. Thanks.

The laws of the universe are found in statistical correlations between measurement outcomes.
We perform experiments, measurements, and observations on aspects of the world around us - for example, we might measure the electrostatic force some distance from an electrical charge, and then do the same again at some other distance from the same charge, and so on. Given enough data points, a statistical pattern emerges, and that pattern is exactly the physical law that governs electrostatic forces for this particular setup. You repeat the same for more general setups, und you get more general laws. 

So the laws of the universe reside precisely in patterns that emerge from our observation of it.

[Strange]

Although the question is ill defined (or perhaps because it is) it has evoked a great variety of interesting answers. 

[Eise]

Here goes a little nitpicking...

On 9/23/2018 at 7:26 PM, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, we have laws that govern things in the universe.

No. This might be metaphoric speech (as used also by many real physicists), and then this would be nitpicking. But I think often there is more behind it. 

So: no, the so called 'laws of nature' are descriptions of how nature factually behaves. And descriptions do not 'govern' anything, they can't. 

On 9/23/2018 at 9:22 PM, Itoero said:

The 'laws of the universe' don't have a physical presence. They concern  are what we say about the universe.

Small correction. Think about it. 

On 9/23/2018 at 9:54 PM, beecee said:

I would say that the laws of the universe are governed by the four known forces in nature

Beside the point about 'govern' I made above, you are mixing different categories. Of course our descriptions are not 'governed' by forces. The right way to say it would be that the objects in nature are 'governed' by the forces in nature. This can be disputed on basis of QM, but at least it is not a category error anymore.

Litewave's answer is very precise. I especially like his last remarks:

On 9/23/2018 at 8:51 PM, litewave said:

The instantiation relation between a property and its particular instance seems ineffable (unanalyzable) and simultaneously obvious. (...)

The nature of properties and the way in which they exist has haunted philosophers since the time of Plato.

My tutor in my study of philosophy wrote his dissertation about what you are suggesting with your 'ineffable (unanalyzable) and simultaneously obvious': The Antinomy Of Thought: Maimonian skepticism and the relation between thoughts and objects. Pity enough it is a highly technical argument, but the cover of his original dissertation may give some clue...

The essence of what he is proposing is that we principally cannot give an intelligible account of the relation between thought and objects. So we cannot stop the haunting...

 

[Itoero]

On ‎25‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 9:05 AM, Eise said:

Small correction. Think about it. 

That's actually not a correct correction.  The laws of the universe are what we say about the universe through experiments/empirical evidence.