What if we change our laws of physics???

[Ailurophobia]

It's not a statement, it's more of the general idea of the book. The actual knowledge and validity behind it is in the 6th chapter I believe. I no longer posses it either.

[Rajnish Kaushik]

 

It means do not start multiple threads on this topic; you had many, many duplicate threads when you originally posted.

so therefore they are moved or removed right??

[swansont]

so therefore they are moved or removed right??

Duplicate threads are merged, if appropriate, or removed.

[Rajnish Kaushik]

i didnt got my answer yet

[swansont]

i didnt got my answer yet

 

What part of my response needs amplification?

[Rajnish Kaushik]

 

What part of my response needs amplification?

i wanted to know that if we change the laws of physics then can we travel in time and do much more awesome things

[Strange]

i wanted to know that if we change the laws of physics then can we travel in time and do much more awesome things

 

Of course. If you change the laws of physics then you can do whatever you want. But that is science fiction, not science.

[Rajnish Kaushik]

iits not about u bro

 

Of course. If you change the laws of physics then you can do whatever you want. But that is science fiction, not science.

cant we change them by our science discoveries

[Strange]

cant we change them by our science discoveries

 

As noted already, we don't change the world or the laws of physics, we just discover what they are.

 

If your questions is actually: "will future discoveries allow us to travel in time" then the only possible answer is: "we don't know". If we did know, then it wouldn't require future discoveries. There are good reasons to think that time travel is impossible, but they are more philosophical than scientific.

[Rajnish Kaushik]

 

Relativity reduces to Newtonian physics in the limit of small speeds; basically the terms for KE and momentum, etc. are the fist term in the expansion of the relativistic expressions. It's not an unreasonable characterization.

 

 

With fingers crossed behind backs? No, not so much. I've never crossed my fingers, hoping that a relativistic effect will work.

 

 

If you can change the laws, they aren't laws anymore.

 

 

 

It means do not start multiple threads on this topic; you had many, many duplicate threads when you originally posted.

 

 

Duplicate threads are merged, if appropriate, or removed.

 

 

 

What part of my response needs amplification?

Mr admin i just want to try one thing

i will post in one forum that please increase my reputation and lets see what happens please let me do so please please

i am waiting for your ripply

please reply fast then i will post in forum u say

and one more thing can you please move this post back to physics section please

please

[John Cuthber]

The whole idea of changing the laws of physics is speculative.

Why do you not think it should be in the speculation section?

 

Anyway, we can't change the laws of physics so this idea is not going to achieve anything useful

[Rajnish Kaushik]

but we can discover some new

one of the example is newton said matter cannot be distroyed but einstine proved that wrong and hence he changed the law and which is purely physics and not spateculars

[Strange]

but we can discover some new

 

Hoping that we might discover new science that allows time travel is speculation (at best; more like science fiction).

[Rajnish Kaushik]

science friction contain word science bro science

[Ailurophobia]

science friction contain word science bro science

Science Fiction also contains the word fiction. The stuff in Star-Trek isn't real, if we had the knowledge to figure that stuff out we'd have those things like super space ships and phasers. Alas, science fiction is mostly concepts.

However, I'm not completely opposed to the fact that we may be able to change the laws of physics. Without the answer to the link given, we can't answer the question here.

Is it scientifically possible to prove something is impossible?:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/80895-is-it-scientifically-possible-to-prove-something-is-impossible/

Also, a lot of a studies info get's overwritten in science all the time. We constantly find new things we thought were "crazy" before, such as changing physics.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Ailurophobia

[Wso]

The laws of physics are simply patterns that we have noticed about the way the universe works. It is impossible to prove that they are correct, but very simple to disprove, assuming that you have a counter example of the law you wish to disprove. Nature didn't "make" the laws of physics, mankind sought to understand what the outcome would be given a certain event.

[Rajnish Kaushik]

then the overall meaning is that we cannot change them right

[Wso]

then the overall meaning is that we cannot change them right

Not necessarily, what this means is that, as humans we can not change the outcome of a given input. We can however, change how we describe the process that makes the outcome. We can make whatever laws we want, the universe does whatever it does regardless of our laws. So in a way yes but also no. I hope that this reply made sense, it was a bit difficult to word, so don't hesitate to tell me what I said made no sense.

[Rajnish Kaushik]

thanks wso

Edited January 6, 2014 by Rajnish Kaushik

[swansont]

Not necessarily, what this means is that, as humans we can not change the outcome of a given input. We can however, change how we describe the process that makes the outcome. We can make whatever laws we want, the universe does whatever it does regardless of our laws. So in a way yes but also no. I hope that this reply made sense, it was a bit difficult to word, so don't hesitate to tell me what I said made no sense.

 

Since the laws reflect how nature behaves, we can't "make whatever laws we want" and call it science. Telling nature how it must behave behave is ideology, or perhaps something else.

[ajb]

What we can do is on paper change our mathematical models and see how that changes things. This could be a useful exersise in undertsanding physics, say what would happen to quantum mechanics if Planck's constant was much larger, or the mass of the electron much heavier etc. One could try adding "as of yet unseen" particles to your models, or adding extra terms in interactions (nom-minimal coupling) and so on..

 

It maybe possible that the physics we see today can accomodate these extra peices or maybe not. Either way, it could be useful in understanding nature. However, this would not actually be changing nature in anyway, just trying to modifty how we describe it.

 

With your opening question, it is not exactly obvious that physics does not allow time travel.

[Rajnish Kaushik]

but we can bend the time and space stream exactly as black hole and wormholes

 

 

Since the laws reflect how nature behaves, we can't "make whatever laws we want" and call it science. Telling nature how it must behave behave is ideology, or perhaps something else.

 

What we can do is on paper change our mathematical models and see how that changes things. This could be a useful exersise in undertsanding physics, say what would happen to quantum mechanics if Planck's constant was much larger, or the mass of the electron much heavier etc. One could try adding "as of yet unseen" particles to your models, or adding extra terms in interactions (nom-minimal coupling) and so on..

It maybe possible that the physics we see today can accomodate these extra peices or maybe not. Either way, it could be useful in understanding nature. However, this would not actually be changing nature in anyway, just trying to modifty how we describe it.

With your opening question, it is not exactly obvious that physics does not allow time travel.

 

do

[swansont]

but we can bend the time and space stream exactly as black hole and wormholes

 

 

In accordance with the laws of physics, yes.

[Rajnish Kaushik]

means i was right indeed yeeeeeeee

felling blessed!

[Sensei]

Rajnish Kaushik, we cannot change laws of physics just like that.

Older researchers made measurements and basing on them created mathematical formulas describing what they measured.

It's repeatable by everyone, everybody are receiving steady expectable results, so it's law in physics.

But new researchers can find situations when measurement doesn't agree with old physics law.

We call it violation. They're very rare.

Otherwise they would be noticed immediately by original researchers that formulated law.

 

Instance of violation of law is "Violations of the lepton number conservation laws"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number

 

On wiki page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_number

you have brief information about hypothetical violation of Baryon number conservation

 

"The still hypothetical idea of a grand unified theory allows for the changing of a baryon into several leptons (see B - L), thus violating the conservation of both baryon and lepton numbers.[1] Proton decay would be an example of such a process taking place, but has never been observed."