Question Why do we have a set of Laws of Physics? Is there anything that does not follow it?

[IG2007]

Everything that exists now, whether it is the laptop I am typing on, or my ownself, this Earth, the Sun, the Solar System, our Galaxy, proton, neutron, electron, dark matter, dark energy, blackholes and everything else in the Universe is bound by the Laws of Physics which was set during the Big Bang. Sometimes, I think, isn't it weird that we do even have Set of Laws that governs everything in the Universe? Why do we have a set of Laws of Physics? And is there anything in the Universe which does not follow it?

 

[akashrao]

laws of physics began appearing as humans began to take questions about themselves and their surroundings by making careful observations with measurements taken during observations, and then when they were looking at the data they found some patterns of behaviour of heavenly bodies and earthly bodies and sub atomic worlds - these patterns of behaviour were not usually with exceptions in these 3 realms and therefore they became laws of natural philosophy (or science) which later got divided into physics, chemistry, botany, zoology, etc. ... it takes / took several centuries to arrive at the first mathematically valid laws of physics, in the due course of which god disappeared as origin of the world or from the role of creator ... however, since human intellect is not incalculably huge as much as the imagined god therefore there are still many questions which do not get to be answered by science! this is where many other branches peep in - where we can not bind the worldly behaviour in mathematical formulae we have kept logical understanding and philosophy and so on ... so not every part of our experience can be fit into mathematics although as we make foray into future more and more processes of nature and existence find mathematical models ... when we find mathematical explanation to something, some phenomenon, it would then be in our hands i.e. we could manipulate such a phenomenon as we like ... in this respect we sometimes get to play god too

 

[rod]

*set during the Big Bang*. Which version of the BB created physical laws documented in science today? Example, Newton's laws of motion, gravity, c constant, alpha constant, etc. In 1948, there was a completely different version of the BB using quantum mechanics and General Relativity that explained the origin of the universe and all elements on the Periodic Table, but I am not aware that this model explained the origin of all known physical laws observed and measured today in science.

“Nineteen years after Edwin Hubble’s discovery that the galaxies seem to be running away from one another at fabulously high speeds, the picture presented by the expanding universe theory—which assumes that in its original state all matter was squeezed together in one solid mass of extremely high density and temperature—gives us the right conditions for building up all the known elements in the periodic system. According to calculations, the formation of elements must have started five minutes after the maximum compression of the universe. It was fully accomplished, in all essentials, about 10 minutes later.” —Scientific American, July 1948

Today the BB math used is very different, quantum field theory, leptogenesis, inflation, multiverse, etc.

 

[akashrao]

so why have laws of physics ? it is simply because our understanding began to flow / grow in that direction alongside evolution of mankind ... so we just arrived at them ...

 

[rod]

The issue or question I see, how did physical laws and constants arise via the BB model? No gravity exists in the flat earth community according to FE science, so a heliocentric solar system is not needed or used for example. Remember, there are a number of BB flavors published since 1948 too.

 

[Wolfshadw]

I think you need to amend your original statement:

Everything that exists now

Should Read: Everything that we OBSERVE now

is bound by the Laws of Physics

Should Read: Falls within OUR MODEL of physics.

The simple truth is, we're finding things, all the time, that don't fit our current model of physics. I hear it all the time, "It shouldn't exist, but...." or "It shouldn't work, but...".

The simple fact is, the vast majority of human understanding is based on one small planet and moon; orbiting one small and relatively insignificant star in the outer reaches of a nominal galaxy, which is part of a relatively insignificant cluster of galaxies in a vast web of super-cluster galaxies. Beyond that planet and moon system, we can observe and make educated guesses to create our models, but until we get out beyond that, we'll never know if "Law" applies.

-Wolf sends

 

[rod]

"we'll never know if "Law" applies."

My understanding of physical laws, the laws are described in science using math like Kepler's planetary laws, e.g. elliptical orbits, Newton's laws of motion, universal law of gravitation. In astronomy, it took several centuries after Kepler and Newton before the math description was elevated to the status of a law. Astronomers found these laws applied outside the solar system like binary star orbits, and now the host of exoplanets documented. Today we still call Einstein Special Relativity and General Relativity, the theory of Relativity, etc. some one hundred years later after the physics and math was published. Parts of the math predictions remain to be tested, progress is being made like observations of neutron star mergers, black hole merges, gravity waves.

 

[rod]

"Why do we have a set of Laws of Physics?" I find thinking like this very useful and interesting. Using the present flavor of the Big Bang model, why should the universe have objects that can move in stable, elliptical orbits? Why not just random collisions and total chaos and a universe where no stable orbits can exist? No stars, no planets, no solar systems, and no one reading space.com reports in this type of universe

 

[Wolfshadw]

progress is being made

....and this is the core of the topic. We don't have the math to match all of our observations, but we're working on it.
I would add, given our experience, that there are things out there that we have not yet observed that do not mesh with our current understandings.

-Wolf sends

 

[Wolfshadw]

"Why do we have a set of Laws of Physics?" I find thinking like this very useful and interesting. Using the present flavor of the Big Bang model, why should the universe have objects that can move in stable, elliptical orbits? Why not just random collisions and total chaos and a universe where no stable orbits can exist? No stars, no planets, no solar systems, and no one reading space.com reports in this type of universe

If I may postulate for a moment, I think of the universe as a self correcting system. In an attempt to maintain balance and existence, it needs to adhere to fundamental properties.

-Wolf sends

 

[rod]

Wolfshadw, How does the universe decide what is or are *fundamental properties*?

 

[Wolfshadw]

Wolfshadw, How does the universe decide what is or are *fundamental properties*?

I know I'm getting in WAY over my head here, but...

In a multi-verse system, I'd say trial and error. The only universes that resolve into stability would be those that conform to these properties.
In a single-verse system, it's self-correcting. It expands and creates where it is feasible to do so and limits and kills where it needs to in order to maintain a balance.

If you're questioning whether or not I believe the universe has some form of sentience, then I would say, "yes, it does".

-Wolf sends

 

[rod]

Glad you clarified here Wolf. A multi-verse, a universe that is sentient, could be used to explain why things work they way they do. Scientific testing is need to show if these concepts are true, e.g. Galileo and his telescope observations of the Galilean moons moving around Jupiter and the argument used by these telescope observations against the geocentric solar system astronomy teachers. A fundamental property of the scientific method is that a theory should be repeatable, testable, and falsifiable. This methodology worked well to move astronomy from the geocentric teaching of Claudia Ptolemy and Tycho Brahe to the heliocentric solar system of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton.

 

[Catastrophe]

If I may postulate for a moment, I think of the universe as a self correcting system. In an attempt to maintain balance and existence, it needs to adhere to fundamental properties.

-Wolf sends

Hi Wolf
" In an attempt to maintain balance and existence, it needs to adhere to fundamental properties"
Do you think that is a tad anthropomorphic?
Cat

 

[Geomartian]

Step out in the road waving a sign saying it is the law and Mother Nature is going to make you roadkill. About the only law where I haven’t seen any fine print was for the conservation of energy.

 

[Wolfshadw]

Hi Wolf
" In an attempt to maintain balance and existence, it needs to adhere to fundamental properties"
Do you think that is a tad anthropomorphic?
Cat

Yes, but it's not intentional. I mean., what else can we use as a baseline for our understanding?

-Wolf sends

 

[rod]

It seems answering the question of why we have physical laws operating in the universe today is not easy to answer. From the May 1984 issue of Scientific American - "There are only 3 options for the origin of this universe: 1) it has always existed 2) it suddenly appeared from nothing 3) it was created supernaturally -“It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.” - Guth & Stienhardt, May 1984, Scientific American"

Option 3 is not used in cosmology but it does offer an answer as to why

 

[Wolfshadw]

Actually, I agree with #1. The Universe always existed. It just needed TIME... to figure itself out.

-Wolf sends

 

[IG2007]

I think that there have been infinite other universes before this universe and all have been created by different big bangs and had different laws of Physics.

OR
We are just a part of an infinite multiverse with infinite universes with infinitely different Laws of Physics.​

 

[akashrao]

yeah universe is too huge to imagine indeed ...

 

[IG2007]

yeah universe is too huge to imagine indeed ...

I don't think so... Human Will-power is the second most powerful thing in the universe.

 

[Catastrophe]

I think that there have been infinite other universes before this universe and all have been created by different big bangs and had different laws of Physics.

OR
We are just a part of an infinite multiverse with infinite universes with infinitely different Laws of Physics.​

We have no way of knowing. I cannot see out of this Universe into other universes, whether or not they have the same laws.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

I don't think so... Human Will-power is the second most powerful thing in the universe.

"Human Will-power is the second most powerful thing in the universe."
Come on! We are just one species inhabiting one unimportant planet for an immeasurably small time. What is that in comparison to the Universe which, itself, may be just one small unimportant universe amongst billions of other universes?

Cat

 

[IG2007]

"Human Will-power is the second most powerful thing in the universe."
Come on! We are just one species inhabiting one unimportant planet for an immeasurably small time. What is that in comparison to the Universe which, itself, may be just one small unimportant universe amongst billions of other universes?

Cat

That's why I said " in this universe", sir. Yes, we are unimportant. We don't have any value. But, only the matter within our body does, "in the universe". And, we are only bound to it.

 

[Catastrophe]

That's why I said " in this universe", sir. Yes, we are unimportant. We don't have any value. But, only the matter within our body does, "in the universe". And, we are only bound to it.

"In our little world we all have value".
All the matter in our bodies is from recycled stars Just think where those atoms have been. But what about the intelligence. You can call it spirit or whatever - it is the identity. We do not know what or how - in what manner - it may be recycled or continued.
The identity does not have to be bound to the atoms.