Yer cannae change the laws of physics, Jim!
-
Newtonian and Maxwellian mechanics don't work so well on small particles, like electrons. Quantum Mechanics doesn't work so well in the macro world we perceive with our senses. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle works well with small particles like electrons, but has no meaning when we are talking about a futbol. When you speak of the laws of physics, it usually depends on the size of the universe you are considering. We don't really have a unified theory that explains all things. The holy grail being the unified force theory. So, to answer your question, Newtonian laws apply to a futbol (or baseball), but Quantum physics applies to the atoms that make up the matter in the ball. And nuclear physics will hurt your head. Nuclear physics and Microsoft(R) Vista(R) should be avoided in order to have a nice day.
CodeWiz51 -- Life is not a spectator sport. I came to play. Code's Musings | Code's Articles
I just thinks it's all relative... Hee, Hee :-D Actually I try to not be too certain about anything. The only things I have seen that are constant are: 1. Change - everything in this reality changes continually 2. Humans resist change more that anything else - we are the Universal Yang to the Cosmic Ying. Everything else is up for debate. That is not to invite anarchy, but to recognize that existence in this reality is dynamic, always in flux and that balance & harmony are moving targets. They have to be, because lack of any movement or flux is stagnation; stagnation is lifeless.
-
I'll be ..... I just threw out my physics, astronomy and cosmology library and bought a bunch of bibles! And everyone: the Universe was not created by the Big Bing. It took just 7 days for everything to be created and all started on 23rd October 4004BC. I wonder if they had all necessary development permits! "Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? ... No other human institution comes close. " - Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World.
No trees were killed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
iangrech wrote:
I'll be ..... I just threw out my physics, astronomy and cosmology library and bought a bunch of bibles! And everyone: the Universe was not created by the Big Bing.
There was a theory that Bing Crosby created the universe?
-
Back in the days when I went to school, when the world was black and white and young ragamuffins spent their days acquiring soot stains from their travels up and down chimneys, I was taught the following: 1) The laws of physics are the same, everywhere in the universe 2) The laws of physics do not change Does anyone have any proof of either of these statements or are they assumptions? Rich
Easy by definition: In physics, if it changes with the location or over time, it is not a law. :D
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Easy by definition: In physics, if it changes with the location or over time, it is not a law. :D
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistUnless of course the law states that there will be a change, and in turn can define the change in mathematical terms...
-
iangrech wrote:
I'll be ..... I just threw out my physics, astronomy and cosmology library and bought a bunch of bibles! And everyone: the Universe was not created by the Big Bing.
There was a theory that Bing Crosby created the universe?
-
No politicians means no political structure. This means no organized society which is called anarchy. I don't believe anarchy is the solution to war.
“Cannot find REALITY.SYS...Universe Halted.” ~ God on phone with Microsoft Customer Support
-
Back in the days when I went to school, when the world was black and white and young ragamuffins spent their days acquiring soot stains from their travels up and down chimneys, I was taught the following: 1) The laws of physics are the same, everywhere in the universe 2) The laws of physics do not change Does anyone have any proof of either of these statements or are they assumptions? Rich
I think most physicists would put both of those statements in the category of reasonably well supported assumptions. Astronomical observations of distant objects are the best evidence we have in support of both. If these observations aren't anomalous then it's likely that physical law is homogeneous throughout space-time. That being said there are some important points to keep in mind about observations of distant objects: 1) they are actually observations of the past. 2) they are necessarily more limited then observations made in local space-time.
-
Back in the days when I went to school, when the world was black and white and young ragamuffins spent their days acquiring soot stains from their travels up and down chimneys, I was taught the following: 1) The laws of physics are the same, everywhere in the universe 2) The laws of physics do not change Does anyone have any proof of either of these statements or are they assumptions? Rich
Well, seeing as most of what we call 'Laws of Physics' are just human inventions, I would say that they can and do change, and therefore are not the same everywhere. Newton invented Gravity - it did not exist before him. I recommend reading "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". ~R
-
Back in the days when I went to school, when the world was black and white and young ragamuffins spent their days acquiring soot stains from their travels up and down chimneys, I was taught the following: 1) The laws of physics are the same, everywhere in the universe 2) The laws of physics do not change Does anyone have any proof of either of these statements or are they assumptions? Rich
This is philosophical question. :D But this is what science is: we explain reallity by models. So more knowledge comes to light and we start to need other models, to replace the older ones. It is a good start to assume the 2 items you listed before. But they are valid only in this model. Well, this is what I think. ;)
-
Back in the days when I went to school, when the world was black and white and young ragamuffins spent their days acquiring soot stains from their travels up and down chimneys, I was taught the following: 1) The laws of physics are the same, everywhere in the universe 2) The laws of physics do not change Does anyone have any proof of either of these statements or are they assumptions? Rich
- The laws of physics are the same, everywhere in the universe
- The laws of physics do not change
Does anyone have any proof of either of these statements or are they assumptions?
The answer depends on your world view: a) Materialism, i.e. there is no God: No, your 1) and 2) cannot be proven, they are considered constant only because our observations and experiments agree with them being constant (currently and viewed from earth), however, there is no logical reason why this invariance should continue in the future. b) Christian Theism, i.e. there is a God and He intended for people to live on earth and to be able to figure out that we are here for a purpose. Yes, your 1) and 2) can at least be assumed, because the laws of physics are extremely finely tuned to allow life to exist ( http://www.leaderu.com/science/ross-justright.html ), and being tuned by God makes it logical that they stay the way they are, i.e. something that was carefully built stays the way it is. It would only change if the builder makes revisions.
-
Back in the days when I went to school, when the world was black and white and young ragamuffins spent their days acquiring soot stains from their travels up and down chimneys, I was taught the following: 1) The laws of physics are the same, everywhere in the universe 2) The laws of physics do not change Does anyone have any proof of either of these statements or are they assumptions? Rich
I actually have a degree in theoretical physics so I can answer this. The laws of physics are the same everywhere comes from applications Noether's theorem (technical stuff to do with symmetry and conserved currents) - for example if conservation of mementum is true anywhere then it must be true under any translation (i.e. everywhere). If conservation of angualr momentum is true anywhere the it must be true under any rotation (i.e. in any direction). From (formally nasty complex mathematical) statements like these we conclude that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. The laws of physics don't change - much trickier. If you mean conservation of memntum is always true and always was then yes, BUT if you mean the speed of light is was and ever shall be ~3.0e8 m/s then thats an open question. There is a whole group of theories that require various constants to have changed or still be changing. There is another aspect too - you might think conservation of energy would give you constancy of the laws of physics over time, but we know that conservation of what we normally call energy is only approximate, it is absolutely not true on either the largest or the smallest scales.
Using the latest technology to create tomorrows problems today.
-
There wasn't any gasoline in 1066, but King Harold got an arrow in his eye in, erm, a war.
.\\axxx
gasoline wouldnt be there but there would be something equivalent which caused the war. People have been fighting for materialistic things all over the history.
-
I'll be ..... I just threw out my physics, astronomy and cosmology library and bought a bunch of bibles! And everyone: the Universe was not created by the Big Bing. It took just 7 days for everything to be created and all started on 23rd October 4004BC. I wonder if they had all necessary development permits! "Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? ... No other human institution comes close. " - Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World.
No trees were killed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
iangrech wrote:
"Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? ... No other human institution comes close. " - Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World.
Hmmm, someone obviously never read the book of Daniel (for starters).
-
There are many astronomical observations that agree with those statements. Things like spectra of stars, observed motion of stars within a galaxy and many other observations point to that being true. Those are only observations not experiments The vast majority of all experiments have been done at the surface of the Earth, and the most distant experiments from Earth have all been done with unmanned probes, and all of them within our tiny solar system. The current set of laws for describing the universe has gone from a hand crafted assembly or C++ application to the bloated enterprisy conglomeration of VB modules that is the standard model. Everyone wants there to be something simpler, nobody knows what it is, but perhaps finding it has to do with questioning assumptions like those.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
I wish people would stop alluding to the van Nistelrooy goal against Italy; the section quoted is clearly discussing the offside law.
Andy Brummer wrote:
Everyone wants there to be something simpler, nobody knows what it is, but perhaps finding it has to do with questioning assumptions like those.
-
Back in the days when I went to school, when the world was black and white and young ragamuffins spent their days acquiring soot stains from their travels up and down chimneys, I was taught the following: 1) The laws of physics are the same, everywhere in the universe 2) The laws of physics do not change Does anyone have any proof of either of these statements or are they assumptions? Rich
-
- The laws of physics are the same, everywhere in the universe
- The laws of physics do not change
Does anyone have any proof of either of these statements or are they assumptions?
The answer depends on your world view: a) Materialism, i.e. there is no God: No, your 1) and 2) cannot be proven, they are considered constant only because our observations and experiments agree with them being constant (currently and viewed from earth), however, there is no logical reason why this invariance should continue in the future. b) Christian Theism, i.e. there is a God and He intended for people to live on earth and to be able to figure out that we are here for a purpose. Yes, your 1) and 2) can at least be assumed, because the laws of physics are extremely finely tuned to allow life to exist ( http://www.leaderu.com/science/ross-justright.html ), and being tuned by God makes it logical that they stay the way they are, i.e. something that was carefully built stays the way it is. It would only change if the builder makes revisions.
-
I'll be ..... I just threw out my physics, astronomy and cosmology library and bought a bunch of bibles! And everyone: the Universe was not created by the Big Bing. It took just 7 days for everything to be created and all started on 23rd October 4004BC. I wonder if they had all necessary development permits! "Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? ... No other human institution comes close. " - Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World.
No trees were killed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
-
Back in the days when I went to school, when the world was black and white and young ragamuffins spent their days acquiring soot stains from their travels up and down chimneys, I was taught the following: 1) The laws of physics are the same, everywhere in the universe 2) The laws of physics do not change Does anyone have any proof of either of these statements or are they assumptions? Rich
They are not assumptions. 1. The proof that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity which lays out the structure of the universe required to make the laws of physics the same in all frames of reference. The things that most people associate with the Theory of Relativity, E=mc^2, space-time, time dialation, etc. are the results of the structure that Einstein proposed and have been tested and verified. The General Theory of Relativity was the result of Einsteins reconciliation of Maxwell's equations, which do not allow for a standing electromagnetic wave, and Newtonian physics which held that space and time were seperate static entities. Prior to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, there was a Theory of Relativity for Newtonian physics which held that the laws of physics were the same in all frames of reference but was primarily concerned with mechanical physics. 2.Our understanding of the laws of physics has changed over time but no one has ever demonstrated that the laws of physics themselves have changed. This is a good thing as relatively small changes to the laws of physics or some constants could radically alter the universe say making atomic structures or fusion impossible. As a for instance, to change the speed of light you would have to change the permitivity of free space which would in turn affect the electromagnetic forces between nuclear particles which could in turn change the energy released by fusion. If this change were to occur depending on which way it changed, some stars would either collapse into black holes or explode as the balance between the pressure from fusion and the weight of the matter in the star changed. If the laws of physics did change it is likely we would never know about it as we would almost certainly be instantly anihilated.
modified on Thursday, June 12, 2008 1:03 PM
-
I'll be ..... I just threw out my physics, astronomy and cosmology library and bought a bunch of bibles! And everyone: the Universe was not created by the Big Bing. It took just 7 days for everything to be created and all started on 23rd October 4004BC. I wonder if they had all necessary development permits! "Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? ... No other human institution comes close. " - Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World.
No trees were killed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
I knew someone would respond with an intelligent comment like this! News flash: Not every Christian has the Medieval, anti-science mindset that you're describing (though, sadly, too many do!)... On the contrary, some of us actually have enough smarts to understand that if God created the Universe then the Universe must reflect this fact. And if the Bible really is the inspired Word of God, then science and the Bible must line up. The anti-Big Bang and 7-day-creation theology comes from a gross misinterpretation of the creation account in Genesis. The word for "day" there is "yom" (as in Yom Kippur, etc.), and, while sometimes indicating a 24-hour period, can also mean "eon" or "era". We have this usage of "day" in the English language as well, as in "back in my day" or "the day of the dinosaur"... So, yes, the Big Bang did occur, and many billions of years ago. For something to be created, it has to have a beginning (as in the Big Bang), and this in turn indicates a cause. The Bible tells us that God said, "Let there be light", and the light has been penetrating the darkness ever since. Amazing that Moses (who penned Genesis) could know about the Big Bang and the continuing expansion of the Universe so many thousands of years before the science of cosmology began! The reference I cited is from an organization called "Reasons to Believe" that believes in the 100% validity of the Bible and the 100% validity of science. You should check them out: http://www.reasons.org/[^] P.S. To paraphrase Sagan: Think of how many scientists attempt to validate themselves with only science that they can personally comprehend. Sagan was great at marveling over the graspable Universe around him, but didn't try too much to ponder what's beyond this. The Big Bang proves that there is a transcendent realm (doesn't it?). Einstein, in his later years, brought embarrassment to his scientific career, the most distinguished in history, by rejecting quantum physics, essentially because he couldn't personally grasp it... Love both these guys, and how human of us all to need to define all of reality according to our own tiny little contexts...
-
Your assertions presume that "The laws of physics" includes a complete description of the entire how the universe world. By Godel's incompleteness theorem, this is not possible. QED. Cheer, Will.
wamckee wrote:
Godel's incompleteness theorem
But presumably you'd first have to prove the theorem is correct ... Rich
