Can the laws of physics be wrong?

[Rajnish Kaushik]

Well, i think that there cannot be a set of some laws which determine the behavoiur of every particle in the universe.

We come across many videos which shows objects which does not follows the laws which we think are final.

I may be wrong but still i will like to hear your views on this so I posted it in Speculations.

[Mordred]

Too broad a subject without a specific direction. First off you mentioned videos. Can you specify what laws those videos state they violate?

[Phi for All]

Well, i think that there cannot be a set of some laws which determine the behavoiur of every particle in the universe.

We come across many videos which shows objects which does not follows the laws which we think are final.

I may be wrong but still i will like to hear your views on this so I posted it in Speculations.

!

Moderator Note

This lacks all rigor. You're just claiming this with nothing to support your idea except "It doesn't seem likely to me". This is known as the Argument from Incredulity, it's a logical fallacy, and a poor method of learning.

 

If their are videos out there that claim the physical laws are wrong, please DO NOT post them here, but rather, as Mordred asks, summarize the conclusions you think they present that show where physics isn't being followed. Please, please, support your claims with evidence, not fallacious logic.

[Strange]

 

Can the laws of physics be wrong?

 

Sometimes, when we discover new laws or theories. For example, we found out that Newton's law of gravity was "wrong" (not always accurate) and now we have a better theory (General Relativity). One day we may find a case where that doesn't apply and need a new theory.

 

All theories are provisional. This is how science advances.

[Fuzzwood]

Science doesn't care what an individual thinks of it. There are measurements and theories that conform to these results. If we find that new data doesn't fit the current theories, the theories need to be adjusted. In that sense they can indeed be wrong, or more accurate, not good enough.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Fuzzwood

[studiot]

Well, i think that there cannot be a set of some laws which determine the behavoiur of every particle in the universe.

We come across many videos which shows objects which does not follows the laws which we think are final.

I may be wrong but still i will like to hear your views on this so I posted it in Speculations.

 

Well I think the OP was a perfectly reasonable question from a younger member seeking guidance so +1 Rajnish.

I also think you guys have been rather hard on rajnish so I have reviewed his other threads and find much the same .

 

Rajnish, it is well recognised that when we are you we tend to seek extremes and 'cut and dried' answers.

So we demand true or false - right or wrong (morally) - the biggest or smallest -and so on.

It is usually after we mature that we realise 'There are no absolutes' (Note the deliberate paradox) and that the answer to most questions is

"It depends upon circumstances"

.The answers in your question about metallic or non metallic hydrogen is a good example.

 

Here things are just the same.

 

You need to think about what you mean by "the laws of physics".

They are not just empty staments in isolation.

They are no good whatsoever without somethign to apply them to.

 

So they always come equipped with some statement about this.

You can be sure that a law derived from careful repeated scientific experiment will be true for the circumstances for which it was produced.

 

Step outside those circumstances and it may or may not still be true.

 

Many laws are idealisations or approximations but we cannot always (if ever) separate out only the quantities that are acting in a particualr law.

 

A good example is heat flow.

 

We calculate Fourier's Law in one dimension on the assumption that there is no sideways flow because the heat conductor is perfectly insulated.

[Sensei]

Well, i think that there cannot be a set of some laws which determine the behavoiur of every particle in the universe.

 

Plentiful quantum physics are based on probability.

f.e. you have some single unstable particle. There is no law allowing to predict when exactly it'll decay (otherwise it would be no probability, but determinism).

But there are brackets when we can expect it happening. 50% chance it decayed is at half-life time since the start of "clock".

 

There is equation (from experimental data), allowing to calculate how much of f.e. 1000g of this substance will decay to 500g daughter isotopes and other products of decay (and another 500g remain original substance)..

 

Probabilistic law can be used together with deterministic law.

f.e. emission of photon (moment when it happens) from excited particle is ruled by probability, while energy released can be deterministic (peak +- some tolerance, again probability).

 

Sometimes it's possible to cheat destiny/probability.

f.e. decay of isotope by electron capture (when it's the only allowed decay mode) can be suspended indefinitely by ejecting (ionization) of atom.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Sensei

[Eldad Eshel]

Has the law of the speed of light ever been broken ? Like in quantum teleportation ?

From some google searches it looks like it has been broken.

[swansont]

Has the law of the speed of light ever been broken ? Like in quantum teleportation ?

 

From some google searches it looks like it has been broken.

No, but it's quite likely that you are misinterpreting "the law of the speed of light", because it's quite common to do so.

[sonjouten05]

Well, i think that there cannot be a set of some laws which determine the behavoiur of every particle in the universe.

We come across many videos which shows objects which does not follows the laws which we think are final.

I may be wrong but still i will like to hear your views on this so I posted it in Speculations.

Think about it... the most "up to date" theories we have regarding the parts of physics and science in general (Relativity cant be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, neither can even evolution.. but its the most accurate explanations in their perspective fields)

[Phi for All]

Think about it... the most "up to date" theories we have regarding the parts of physics and science in general (Relativity cant be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, neither can even evolution.. but its the most accurate explanations in their perspective fields)

 

You make it sound like science is lacking, but this is EXACTLY why the scientific method is so successful for us. and EXACTLY the way it's supposed to work. If you think you have the answer, you stop asking the question. Science never stops questioning, because we use theory instead of "proof".

 

And yes, we do it to give ourselves the best explanations currently possible for various phenomena. Why do you sound like you have a problem with that? What methodology would you use that's at least as trustworthy?

[sonjouten05]

 

You make it sound like science is lacking, but this is EXACTLY why the scientific method is so successful for us. and EXACTLY the way it's supposed to work. If you think you have the answer, you stop asking the question. Science never stops questioning, because we use theory instead of "proof".

 

And yes, we do it to give ourselves the best explanations currently possible for various phenomena. Why do you sound like you have a problem with that? What methodology would you use that's at least as trustworthy?

 

i actually love the scientific method, but i also understand the nature of the world. you tell the wrong person the truth and they will "watch the world burn" so to speak. i am actually big fans of both relativity and evolution, i think theyre more or less as accurate as we could expect being human. But i also know that they replaced almost equally believed theories at the time. I believe in science, but i know its either incomplete or hidden, there are many reasons to hide the most powerful aspects mind you... Hiroshima tells us that much..

[Phi for All]

I believe in science, but i know its either incomplete or hidden, there are many reasons to hide the most powerful aspects mind you... Hiroshima tells us that much..

Sorry, but I really dislike your approach to the subject. It's like you're saying science is barely acceptable because we don't know everything. It's incomplete, hidden, can't be proven. It's an undue pessimism that taints what I feel is incomparably wonderful and fascinating. Oh well.

[sonjouten05]

Sorry, but I really dislike your approach to the subject. It's like you're saying science is barely acceptable because we don't know everything. It's incomplete, hidden, can't be proven. It's an undue pessimism that taints what I feel is incomparably wonderful and fascinating. Oh well.

its not science i have issue with. it is it's "witnesses"

[studiot]

 

sonjouten

Think about it... the most "up to date" theories we have regarding the parts of physics and science in general (Relativity cant be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, neither can even evolution.. but its the most accurate explanations in their perspective fields)

 

i actually love the scientific method, but i also understand the nature of the world. you tell the wrong person the truth and they will "watch the world burn" so to speak. i am actually big fans of both relativity and evolution, i think theyre more or less as accurate as we could expect being human. But i also know that they replaced almost equally believed theories at the time. I believe in science, but i know its either incomplete or hidden, there are many reasons to hide the most powerful aspects mind you... Hiroshima tells us that much..

 

 

 

I have to say I'm puzzled by these posts.

 

The first one makes no sense.

 

The second add nothing by way of explanation or the reason for either in this thread.

 

As regards the scientific method, its purpose is simple.

 

We can create many theoretical constructs, the scientific method is there to enable us to establish which one in fact holds sway.

That is it is there to sort the sheep from the goats.

[Ophiolite]

sonjouten, simply appears to be saying that we should never abandon our critical thinking and never forget, no matter how well validated so far, all theories could be overturned: one rabbit in the Cambrian and it's back to the drawing board. Do I have your view correct sonjouten?

[DrP]

QUOTE OP:- "we came across many videos which shows object that do not follow the laws.."

 

I've never seen one - can you point them out to us please.

[DanTrentfield]

Well, i think that there cannot be a set of some laws which determine the behavoiur of every particle in the universe.

We come across many videos which shows objects which does not follows the laws which we think are final.

I may be wrong but still i will like to hear your views on this so I posted it in Speculations.

Ha ha ha....... of course not EVERY particle in the universe is governed by the same laws (Laws of physics for example) it doesn't work like that, That's why we assigned them into groups, like the laws of thermodynamics versus Mendel's laws in Thermal Dynamics and Biology. You can't build a city with just one type of building can you? That's why there are hundreds of sets of scientific laws, each pertaining to it's own niche, some even bridging over into other little subgroups of laws with laws from various groups to explain why said proton went in said way. Science is diverse you know...

[Rajnish Kaushik]

Ha ha ha....... of course not EVERY particle in the universe is governed by the same laws (Laws of physics for example) it doesn't work like that, That's why we assigned them into groups, like the laws of thermodynamics versus Mendel's laws in Thermal Dynamics and Biology. You can't build a city with just one type of building can you? That's why there are hundreds of sets of scientific laws, each pertaining to it's own niche, some even bridging over into other little subgroups of laws with laws from various groups to explain why said proton went in said way. Science is diverse you know...

can there be some particles which does not obey any of the current set of laws we have and we will have to re-think everything after that?

[Phi for All]

can there be some particles which does not obey any of the current set of laws we have and we will have to re-think everything after that?

 

Do you mean some discovery that would make mainstream science useless, and take us all back to square one so we could all learn the new paradigm together?

[Rajnish Kaushik]

 

Do you mean some discovery that would make mainstream science useless, and take us all back to square one so we could all learn the new paradigm together?

 

Something similar..

Like if we find out that the particle which we think are base of everything are no where close to being base but there are many other particles forming them and no current laws can explain their behavior....well, i m just asking questions...

 

Maybe there are some particle out there but we are not able to discover them since we are not even trying to discover them ..

we are searching for things which fits in out prospective and if we come across such particles them we reject them as a fault in the equipment

Just a theory though :')

[Phi for All]

 

Something similar..

Like if we find out that the particle which we think are base of everything are no where close to being base but there are many other particles forming them and no current laws can explain their behavior....well, i m just asking questions...

 

Maybe there are some particle out there but we are not able to discover them since we are not even trying to discover them ..

we are searching for things which fits in out prospective and if we come across such particles them we reject them as a fault in the equipment

Just a theory though :')

 

What are you doing to discover these particles? Have you formally studied these things you're telling us "we are not even trying to discover them"? If you haven't studied much science, how can you say we reject new particles found as "a fault in the equipment"?

 

I think, because you didn't study science, you have a caricature in your mind of what it means, what it does, how it works. I think you now realize you should have studied, but you don't want to go back and do all that hard work. So now you're hoping science will suddenly become useless because some new particle is discovered, and you'll get a chance to start at square one with everyone else.

 

It's not going to happen. You should study mainstream science while you're waiting for it to be challenged.

[swansont]

 

Maybe there are some particle out there but we are not able to discover them since we are not even trying to discover them ..

we are searching for things which fits in out prospective and if we come across such particles them we reject them as a fault in the equipment

Just a theory though :')

 

 

Citations needed for these claims.

 

And perhaps an apology to the multitudes working at particle accelerator labs. I spent 2.5 years on a project looking to see if there was physics beyond the standard model, and that research group continues on today, despite your ignorance of the status of today's research.

[CaroCross]

I am pretty sure that insulting you and others who are working at such labs wasn’t rajnish intention… but I really doubt, that we are searching only for those things, which fit in our perspective and ignore such other particles. I am pretty sure that people like swansont and his lab colleagues will cut a caper, if they make a discovery beyond the standard model and won’t blame their equipment for setbacks or failures!

Edited February 24, 2016 by CaroCross

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

OT commentary has been split

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93681-split-from-can-the-laws-of-physics-be-wrong/