Mr. Sammi

When did the laws of physics come into existence OR perhaps these laws were always in existence?

Scientists think that the laws of physics were in place AT LEAST Cosmology thinks that their laws were in place the instant the big bang occurred.

Does anyone believe there is a major flaw in current scientific thinking?


Sammi Na Boodie ()

Feather

Is there any empirical reason to believe the current laws of nature are flawed more so than we are already aware of?

For example, we know that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, alone, aren't enough to "explain" various phenomena or, rather, that there isn't sufficient knowledge of these two fields to perform adequate experiments to verify their true depth. Many regard this as a "flaw" in the technical sense (i.e. the laws as known do not yield a perfect understanding of the nature of the universe).

But perhaps you mean in a deeper sense: that the approach to discovering the laws of nature is somehow flawed.

In that case, you might suggest a better alternative. It's not necessary to do so to register an objection, but it would be nice.

But the concept of "law of physics coming into existence" is somewhat meaningless to a scientist. It's an interest academic exercise, perhaps, but until some new phenomenon is discovered that can be shown to have not existed before (i.e. a "new law" was "created"), the question of the "origin" of the laws of nature is somewhat irrelevent to the pursuit of science.

eh

No, I think the laws of physics are just descriptive laws that describe the way the natural world works. They have no existence seperate from the real physical universe, IMO.

Some scientists think otherwise, however.

Friar Bellows

You might be interested in these links:

Where Did the Laws of Physics Come From?

The Comprehensible Cosmos

Table of the Laws of Physics and their Sources

Shadowy Man

The laws of physics have been developed by people, mostly physicists, over the last several millenia.

Certain fields of physics have only even come into existence in the last few centuries, and some even newer than that.

Oxymoron

The laws of physics are models of phenomena, not to be confused with reality itself. Map, territory, etc. These models work quite well in places, and not at all well in others (ie QM is very good at working out what electrons do but pretty crap at working out how much beer you can drink before you barf).

Reality, meanwhile, has just gone on doing its thing since t=0.

Shadowy Man

If there really even was a T=0.

cfgauss

VonEvilstein

Speaking as I scientist, I'm not really aware of many "laws" of physics.

Thermodynamics and conservation of energy and momentum are the only things that spring to mind.

What the lawman understands as the "laws of physics" are models. We know we're still a long way from figuring out the real details, but we're getting there.

The truth is, we don't really know if the models we're currently working with, would even remotely describe the initial stages of the universe, or if it played by completely different rules, and the systems we observe today evolved in the univers's early stages. Unfortunately, we will probably never be able o find out, time travel being so potentially impossible and all.


And just to point out:

t=0 - beginning of time
T=0 - bloody cold.

Mr. Sammi

Feather,

I am worling on modelling my answer. I am not ignoring you. I need some more perceptive thinking changes IN ORDER to arrive at a reasonable position which would not be deemed as insignificant.

* * *

However I can throw out a few ideas. The first concerns the use of time at the dawning of our universe. I think it may be more instructive to draw conclusions using quantum-fluctuations AND itz propensity to endure non-fluctuating states. This may be wack but it is within my thought parameters.

I am starting to become clearer with the superimposition of physics on the natural world. I will be back...


Sammi Na Boodie ()