Robittybob1 Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 Are there Universal Laws? Can you break them? What are they? Is the a consequence of breaking a law?
cladking Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 There are no laws of nature. If there were then you couldn't break them. Nature does what it does through cause and effect. But the effect can only be guessed at because the cause can never be defined completely and the means by which it operates is poorly understood. -3
Robittybob1 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Posted February 17, 2016 There are no laws of nature. If there were then you couldn't break them. Nature does what it does through cause and effect. But the effect can only be guessed at because the cause can never be defined completely and the means by which it operates is poorly understood. Maybe the OP question was in haste. Was it the laws of physics I was really making enquiries about? Never mind are there universal laws, natural laws or even laws of physics? The discussion will be helpful. Laws of nature? I have not heard of them sorry.
DanTrentfield Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 There are no laws of nature. If there were then you couldn't break them. Nature does what it does through cause and effect. But the effect can only be guessed at because the cause can never be defined completely and the means by which it operates is poorly understood. Hahaha..... that reminds me of an old argument I had with my calculus professor...... "How can you tell if a law exists if it's unbreakable and there's no differential to calculate the value of the law by?" *After sputtering the calculus professor stamped and shouted* "Because you can! you just can! how can you tell if we exist without knowing what non-existence is in it's entirety? Because we exist!". He always reminded me of Otto Leidenbrock from Journey to the Center of the Earth.... 1
Robittybob1 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Posted February 17, 2016 Hahaha..... that reminds me of an old argument I had with my calculus professor...... "How can you tell if a law exists if it's unbreakable and there's no differential to calculate the value of the law by?" *After sputtering the calculus professor stamped and shouted* "Because you can! you just can! how can you tell if we exist without knowing what non-existence is in it's entirety? Because we exist!". He always reminded me of Otto Leidenbrock from Journey to the Center of the Earth.... You sound like a difficult student. Did you pass? I wish I knew a whole lot more about calculus. Are you saying we can't get a handle on any law in order to prove that it exists? Explain what you mean by differential please?
Strange Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 Are there Universal Laws? Can you break them? What are they? There are some laws we believe are universal such as causality, various conservation laws, etc. And people constantly develop ever better tests to see if they do hold. But even those "universal" laws have limits; conservation of energy does not apply (in any simple form) in general relativity, for example. Is the a consequence of breaking a law? You probably get a Nobel Prize.
DanTrentfield Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 You sound like a difficult student. Did you pass? I wish I knew a whole lot more about calculus. Are you saying we can't get a handle on any law in order to prove that it exists? Explain what you mean by differential please? Differential: A noticeable difference in the behavior of two or more specific things, For example, the line y=3x+2 is different from the line y=26x-18, and the difference between the two lines can be used to mathematically solve for many things in calculus that pertain to that specific equation. Yeah I passed, no it wasn't difficult, it's just the professor was HILARIOUS. No, no no, I'm not saying that we can't get a "handle" on a law to prove we exist..... it was my own hubris that led me down the path to that argument, and I rightfully got my rear end handed to me in it. 1
Robittybob1 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Posted February 17, 2016 ... You probably get a Nobel Prize. That's not so bad!
swansont Posted February 18, 2016 Posted February 18, 2016 There are no laws of nature. ! Moderator Note Keep your personal views out of this. They belong only in their own thread in speculations.
Strange Posted February 18, 2016 Posted February 18, 2016 There is no uncertainty. The paragraph you quote [a bit of] is about interpretation: the existence of non-linearity is not in doubt, just whether you describe this as "gravitational energy" or not. So it comes down to a matter of definitions. So the "law" of conservation may be valid for some definitions of energy (in some circumstances) but not for other definitions. Again, the law is not necessarily universal.
Robittybob1 Posted February 18, 2016 Author Posted February 18, 2016 There is no uncertainty. The paragraph you quote [a bit of] is about interpretation: the existence of non-linearity is not in doubt, just whether you describe this as "gravitational energy" or not. So it comes down to a matter of definitions. So the "law" of conservation may be valid for some definitions of energy (in some circumstances) but not for other definitions. Again, the law is not necessarily universal. That's the unanswered question at the moment. Energy has mass is that a law? Mass has gravity is that a law? Does gravitational radiation have energy hence took mass away from the spinning masses? Einstein argued that all energy has mass, and all mass acts gravitationally. Does "gravitational energy" itself act as a source of gravity? do you know?
swansont Posted February 18, 2016 Posted February 18, 2016 ! Moderator Note Discussion on conservation of energy in GR has been split. Let's stay on topic.http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93590-conservation-of-energy-in-gr-split-from-universal-laws/ Rb1, it might be helpful if you can confirm that you understand what a law is in science.
Robittybob1 Posted February 18, 2016 Author Posted February 18, 2016 I have been looking into the meaning of scientific laws and I would say that the description given in Wikipedia is second to none. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science#Classical_laws The laws of science, scientific laws, or scientific principles are statements that describe or predict a range of phenomena behave as they appear to in nature.[1] The term "law" has diverse usage in many cases: approximate, accurate, broad or narrow theories, in all natural scientific disciplines (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy etc.) Scientific laws summarize and explain a large collection of facts determined by experiment, and are tested based on their ability to predict the results of future experiments. They are developed either from facts or through mathematics, and are strongly supported by empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they reflect causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented.[2]Laws reflect scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty (as mathematical theorems or identities do), and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations. A law can usually be formulated as one or several statements or equations, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the circumstances of the processes taking place.Laws differ from hypotheses and postulates, which are proposed during the scientific process before and during validation by experiment and observation. These are not laws since they have not been verified to the same degree and may not be sufficiently general, although they may lead to the formulation of laws. A law is a more solidified and formal statement, distilled from repeated experiment. Laws are narrower in scope than scientific theories, which may contain one or several laws.[3] Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact.[4] Although the nature of a scientific law is a question in philosophy and although scientific laws describe nature mathematically, scientific laws are practical conclusions reached by the scientific method; they are intended to be neither laden with ontological commitments nor statements of logical absolutes. Scientific laws summarize and explain a large collection of facts determined by experiment, and are tested based on their ability to predict the results of future experiments. They are developed either from facts or through mathematics, and are strongly supported by empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they reflect causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented.
swansont Posted February 18, 2016 Posted February 18, 2016 You do realize that by merely quoting a source you haven't actually answered the question. Why is Newton's gravitation a law but general relativity a theory?
Robittybob1 Posted February 18, 2016 Author Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) You do realize that by merely quoting a source you haven't actually answered the question. Why is Newton's gravitation a law but general relativity a theory? That is a different question than you asked me before. I'll attempt it in the morning. Basically you are wanting me to know the difference between a law and a theory. In the quote it did refer to theory: Laws are narrower in scope than scientific theories, which may contain one or several laws.[3] Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact. But it will need a bit more work than that for what sort of theory has only 1 law? It has a wider scope (OK I'd need to know what that "wider scope" means too). Edited February 18, 2016 by Robittybob1
swansont Posted February 18, 2016 Posted February 18, 2016 That is a different question than you asked me before. I'll attempt it in the morning. Basically you are wanting me to know the difference between a law and a theory. In the quote it did refer to theory: But it will need a bit more work than that for what sort of theory has only 1 law? It has a wider scope (OK I'd need to know what that "wider scope" means too). Different question, same concept. The question is can you explain it without simply quoting someone else.
Robittybob1 Posted February 18, 2016 Author Posted February 18, 2016 Different question, same concept. The question is can you explain it without simply quoting someone else. Am I allowed to ask questions in the process of getting it into my head? When Einstein first wrote m=E/c^2 was that simply an equation, a hypothesis, a law or just a theory?
swansont Posted February 18, 2016 Posted February 18, 2016 Am I allowed to ask questions in the process of getting it into my head? When Einstein first wrote m=E/c^2 was that simply an equation, a hypothesis, a law or just a theory? If you are asking, then the answer to my original inquiry is almost certainly "no" (separate from the fact that he didn't write it as m=E/c^2) Perhaps that should be your focus of inquiry before asking if there are universal laws, and if they can be broken
dimreepr Posted February 18, 2016 Posted February 18, 2016 Am I allowed to ask questions in the process of getting it into my head? When Einstein first wrote m=E/c^2 was that simply an equation, a hypothesis, a law or just a theory? An equation can equal, just a hypothesis or a theory but never a law; I think that was swansont’s point.
Robittybob1 Posted February 18, 2016 Author Posted February 18, 2016 If you are asking, then the answer to my original inquiry is almost certainly "no" (separate from the fact that he didn't write it as m=E/c^2) Perhaps that should be your focus of inquiry before asking if there are universal laws, and if they can be broken The reason I wrote it that way around was some reference I read yesterday showed a photo of Einstein's handwriting and he had it that way around. It was first presented in a different fashion to what we normally use. But if it was simply an equation we can rearrange the equation. So how do you think Einstein first wrote the expression? An equation can equal, just a hypothesis or a theory but never a law; I think that was swansont’s point. Swansont's points are never easy to decipher. Newtonian gravitational attraction is a law and that is written as an equation.
dimreepr Posted February 18, 2016 Posted February 18, 2016 Newtonian gravitational attraction is a law and that is written as an equation. That's my point, write large, lets wait and see if either of us is correct...
Robittybob1 Posted February 18, 2016 Author Posted February 18, 2016 If you are asking, then the answer to my original inquiry is almost certainly "no" ..... Perhaps that should be your focus of inquiry before asking if there are universal laws, and if they can be broken A law and a theory were based on scientific facts that have never been falsified. If they were discovered to be falsified the law is no longer a law and the theory would need revision.
Strange Posted February 18, 2016 Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) When Einstein first wrote m=E/c^2 was that simply an equation, a hypothesis, a law or just a theory? It was an equation derived from theory. Now it has been tested and confirmed, I guess you could say it has the status of a "law". But I don't think it is generally called that. I would describe a law, in science, as some sort of mathematical relationship either derived from theory or purely by observation; e.g. Hubble's Law was created by Hubble from observational data. But it was also derived from GR a few years earlier. Edited February 18, 2016 by Strange
Robittybob1 Posted February 18, 2016 Author Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) That's my point, write large, lets wait and see if either of us is correct... Are you looking into it? It was an equation derived from theory. Now it has been tested and confirmed, I guess you could say it has the status of law. But I don't think it is generally called that. But you are now using the word theory in a different sense as well, you weren't meaning "from other scientific theories" or were you? Google definition of theory theoryˈθɪəri/Submit noun a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. "Darwin's theory of evolution" synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion; More a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based. "a theory of education" an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action. "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged" Which of the 3 versions did you use? It might the first for I recall it was more based on general principles. Edited February 18, 2016 by Robittybob1
dimreepr Posted February 18, 2016 Posted February 18, 2016 No, since I understand the word ‘inviolate’. http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/inviolate http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/inviolate http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inviolate
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now