Are " the Laws of Physics the same Everywhere " . Conveyed by Matter, Fields, Space- Time or Universal Right ?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

As " The Laws of physics are the same everywhere " is one of the fundamental assumptions of relativity, the answer to this question may have some baring on what happens ,where ?

[swansont]

There have been tests

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2008/06/19/are-the-laws-of-physics-the-same-throughout-the-universe

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

There have been tests

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2008/06/19/are-the-laws-of-physics-the-same-throughout-the-universe

 

Yes but that particular test in 2008 on quasar matter to do with electron- proton mass ratio,only shows that matter laws appear to be very similar if not identical. That's fine , but I would have expected that.otherwise the universe would fall to bits.

 

What I am getting at , is :

 

 

A ) Are the laws built up as some form of inherent nature of matter, that maintains laws around them in space as they work with each other in reasonable proximity. ?

 

B) Are these laws maintained in some form of universal field ( like Higgs Field , or another field ) , that pervades all of space.?

 

C) Are the laws of physics viewed as the very nature of the universe, beyond Matter and Fields ?

 

D) A-n-other

 

Each of these categories could result in interesting implications IF say ;; The laws only worked in the reasonable proximity of matter, what happens in inter-galactic space.?. What happens in Vast Astronomical structures like VOIDS in Space . What happens at 10 to the minus goggle?

 

If they are the very nature of the universe . Where did they come from? Did they come out with the Big Bang, Just before the big bang,

 

OR what?

[timo]

(EDIT: The following is in reply to your original post, not the 2nd one where you asked further questions)

I don't really think that "the laws of physics are the same everywhere" is particularly tied to relativity. "Astrophysics" and "cosmology" may be more adequate characterizations of the fields where this assumption is important. And in e.g. astrophysics, the laws of relativity being the same is pretty much equally important as the law of chemical elements' spectral lines being the same. I also disagree with the notion that the assumption was fundamental for relativity. It's merely important for some of its applications (as mentioned).

Edited January 16, 2013 by timo

[Semjase]

That's a far reaching question with far reaching implications, if the the laws of physics are the same everywhere

and if that all there is and always has been, that would indicate a pure evolutionary nature of reality where everything

here can therefore be expalined under these laws without exception.If the laws of physics are different elsewhere

that would indicate a much more complex reality with many more unknown properties and a possible deliberate

nature of these properties.

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

(EDIT: The following is in reply to your original post, not the 2nd one where you asked further questions)

I don't really think that "the laws of physics are the same everywhere" is particularly tied to relativity. "Astrophysics" and "cosmology" may be more adequate characterizations of the fields where this assumption is important. And in e.g. astrophysics, the laws of relativity being the same is pretty much equally important as the law of chemical elements' spectral lines being the same. I also disagree with the notion that the assumption was fundamental for relativity. It's merely important for some of its applications (as mentioned).

 

 

I thought that " the laws of physics are the same in all fields of reference " was one of the founding assumptions of Einstein in his approach to relativity. And that if that were not true then his theory would not be true . However I may have got it wrong ! If so I appollogise both to you and Einstein .

 

.

 

That's a far reaching question with far reaching implications, if the the laws of physics are the same everywhere

and if that all there is and always has been, that would indicate a pure evolutionary nature of reality where everything

here can therefore be expalined under these laws without exception.If the laws of physics are different elsewhere

that would indicate a much more complex reality with many more unknown properties and a possible deliberate

nature of these properties.

 

 

I need to see what comments come in. But I have this hunch ( only a hunch) that under certain circumstances or locations or sizes, we are someday going to find out that the laws of physics are not the same in all places but change according to some yet not understood ways. Not in the way that everything falls apart.Or that stability goes out the window. Far from it, changing laws may open up new avenues of Super-science. But I do not know. I was rather hoping others may have some ideas about the issue.

[SamBridge]

If the laws of physics weren't the same everywhere then you wouldn't necessarily be able to observe that location that was outside out physics. Frankly to me it wouldn't make sense if it weren't true, we matter matter is quantized, it can only exist the forms we see today, because otherwise our math shows that if it tries to exist as anything else, it doesn't exist.

[Semjase]

 

Far from it, changing laws may open up new avenues of Super-science. But I do not know. I was rather hoping others may have some ideas about the issue.

 

Discovering new properties under our existing science is opening up the door for it's own super science

such as serious work on

 

time travel

quantum teleportation

antigravity

reactionless capacitor thrust assist used on deep space explorer craft

sending information at faster than light

searching for theoretical faster than light tachyon particles

faster than light space travel

consciouness surviving death

new energy sources that work on new properties

optical invisibility

[timo]

I thought that " the laws of physics are the same in all fields of reference " was one of the founding assumptions of Einstein in his approach to relativity. And that if that were not true then his theory would not be true . However I may have got it wrong ! If so I appollogise both to you and Einstein .

"The laws of physics are the same in all fields frames of reference" (or similar) indeed is a key phrase in relativity. But that is not the same as "the laws of physics are the same everywhere". The latter talks about the physics at locations/areas, the former about how physics laws should be formulated in order to be robust under the rather different ways to describe a location/area in relativity.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

"The laws of physics are the same in all fields frames of reference" (or similar) indeed is a key phrase in relativity. But that is not the same as "the laws of physics are the same everywhere". The latter talks about the physics at locations/areas, the former about how physics laws should be formulated in order to be robust under the rather different ways to describe a location/area in relativity.

 

Surely the frames of reference are where ever we wish to do some form of relativistic calculation. and that could surely be anywhere in the entire universe you choose ( namely everywhere ), to make our frame of reference, anywhere you care to choose.

 

How about in the middle of a Galactic void, just outside the Virgo Cluster , where the Galaxies occupy the area as if on a bubble surface, particularly where Galaxies Clump in Groups. Now move sideways into the center of the Bubble of the Void.

 

Form a Frame of reference there ;- Can we really assume the laws of Physics are the same "in the void " as another Frame of reference on the Lab. bench. ?

 

Similarly place a frame of reference in the center of the sun, center of a Galaxy or Black hole, the internal atomic structure ( say in between a neutrons' internal quarks) ?

 

Are we not assuming at little bit too all encompassing ?

Edited January 17, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Bill Angel]

That's a far reaching question with far reaching implications, if the the laws of physics are the same everywhere

and if that all there is and always has been, that would indicate a pure evolutionary nature of reality where everything

here can therefore be expalined under these laws without exception.If the laws of physics are different elsewhere

that would indicate a much more complex reality with many more unknown properties and a possible deliberate

nature of these properties.

 

It certainly a good question. My understanding is that the "Standard Model", which is the theory concerning the electromagnetic,weak, and strong nuclear interactions,is considered to be valid througout the known universe. Why? Because these interactions came into existence at the time of the Big Bang, when all of matter, energy,and space was concentrated in a small volume.

But here is a speculative question to ponder. What are the laws of physics inside of a black hole? Does the "Standard Model" describe what occurs inside of a black hole?

Edited January 17, 2013 by Bill Angel

[Semjase]

A black hole may be a gateway to another universe

 

 

a National Geographic article below

 

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-alternate-universe-multiverse-einstein-wormholes/

 

 

There also is proof of outside forces tugging at our universe.

 

 

a National Geographic article below

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100322-dark-flow-matter-outside-universe-multiverse/

 

 

[SamBridge]

A black hole may be a gateway to another universe

 

 

a National Geographic article below

 

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-alternate-universe-multiverse-einstein-wormholes/

 

 

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. You don't seem to know what the difference is between proof and evidence. Besides, Stephan Hawking aready stated wormholes couldn't exist because he found they violate conservation laws.

 

There also is proof of outside forces tugging at our universe.

 

 

a National Geographic article below

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100322-dark-flow-matter-outside-universe-multiverse/

 

Again, possibly evidence, not proof, and anyway way it's just another pop-science article trying to make money from getting views. By the definition of the word "universe", nothing can exist outside of it, there's already other theories to explain this, such as Dark Energy. Gravity cannot exist outside the universe because outside the universe there is no medium for gravity to be transmitted.

[Phi for All]

A black hole may be a gateway to another universe

 

 

a National Geographic article below

 

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-alternate-universe-multiverse-einstein-wormholes/

 

 

There also is proof of outside forces tugging at our universe.

 

 

a National Geographic article below

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100322-dark-flow-matter-outside-universe-multiverse/

 

 

!

Moderator Note

This is also off-topic. Semjase, you've been warned about this before. Please read the rules you agreed to when you joined. Your posts are being reported on a weekly basis, and that won't last long. Your account is going to get suspended if this keeps up.

 

And as SamBridge and others have noted before, PLEASE learn the difference between proof and supportive evidence. Here's a hint: proof is for mathematics.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Have we established yet whether the laws of Physics are conveyed by Fields, particles, Space, the total of them all or from outside ?

[manderson]

•  

  As " The Laws of physics are the same everywhere " is one of the fundamental assumptions of relativity, the answer to this question may have some baring on what happens ,where ?

   

• i don't know the answer, but my belief is no. if the universe curves then by definition such curvature mandates changes. now it is likely the case that all changes are governed by set formulae. i think things appear constant to us because of the great distances/quantities we are dealing with - just like earth appears flat and use to be believed was flat, but only appeared flat because of the great distance relative to our measuring tool (the human eye). likewise i do not trust use of the atomic clock as accurate instrument for measurement nor do i believe the equations of Relativity or Quantum physics are applicable EVERYWHERE. If we believe that then we believe science is complete and their is nothing left to discover...so why waste our time in continued research. i think our current models will come up against their limitations sooner or later, get discarded and replaced with new and better models....even the ideas of our greatest genius's will run their course sooner or later. Some dogmatic so called scientist (aka religious extremist) however scathingly attack anyone who has the audacity to entertain new thought, while they themselves propose NO new thought. they attack others just to feel good feeling they are right, but lose sight of the fact that more can be gained by brainstorming new ideas even if all those new ideas are incorrect.

[SamBridge]

If the equations aren't predictable everywhere then you must find a location where they aren't and prove it. Furthermore equations aren't think you "believe" in. They either yield the same result on both sides, or they don't.

Edited January 17, 2013 by SamBridge

[ACG52]

likewise i do not trust use of the atomic clock as accurate instrument for measurement nor do i believe the equations of Relativity or Quantum physics are applicable EVERYWHERE. If we believe that then we believe science is complete and their is nothing left to discover...so why waste our time in continued research

 

.

 

[manderson]

so if it is not YET unproven are we to assume it is eternally true. or should we humbly say "...based on what we know right now this is what we seem to have, but reason indicates it is likely to change as we learn more in future."

i do not even believe we have "Laws of Physics"...what we have are explanatory models which we continue to use so long as empircal test support them, but we discard those models as soon as they are contradicted empirically.

 

explanatory models are not laws: they are just models, they are not reality. different cultures evolve different models to explain the natural world based on their cultural norms. religions use 'God models', science use Energy models, hindus and ancient egyptians use Consciousness/Energy models. scientific models are wonderful but it would be unwise to dismiss value that can be gained from other models. Before the Laws of Thermodynamics, religion models told us that god is omnipresent and omnipotent: which means same as saying Energy (God) can neither be created nor destroyed. i am not religious, but i keep open mind and anyone who calls themselves a scientist should practice divergent thought as well....at best something new will be learned, at worst new thoughts can be stimulated. it is very important not to dismiss prior to open exploration.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

There have been tests

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2008/06/19/are-the-laws-of-physics-the-same-throughout-the-universe

 

It's possible to create f.e. Hydrogen with proton and muon-.

I would like to see results comparing light wave frequencies, got from regular Hydrogen with electron, and one which is using Muon- instead of electron, to verify whether used procedure really can calculate ratio of proton/electron from far distance.

[manderson]

If the equations aren't predictable everywhere then you must find a location where they aren't and prove it. Furthermore equations aren't think you "believe" in. They either yield the same result on both sides, or they don't.

Euclidean and Galilean equations use to yield same answers on both sides: they no longer do (same with Relativity - by reasoning i BELIEVE einstein's equations will ultimately run into same problem). i do not believe einstein is God. i believe he made extraordinary contributions to physics which will one day be superceded. assuming all he had to say is eternally true EVERYWHERE is not the sort of thinking that will advance science. i see nothing engaging in demonstrating prowess at regurgitating equations others discovered (anyone can do that if they chose to study).

 

i agree the proof of the pudding is in the proof....but i am just typing/reasoning for fun. after logging off i may never return to the site.

[SamBridge]

Euclidean and Galilean equations use to yield same answers on both sides: they no longer do (same with Relativity - by reasoning i BELIEVE einstein's equations will ultimately run into same problem). i do not believe einstein is God. i believe he made extraordinary contributions to physics which will one day be superceded. assuming all he had to say is eternally true EVERYWHERE is not the sort of thinking that will advance science. i see nothing engaging in demonstrating prowess at regurgitating equations others discovered (anyone can do that if they chose to study).

 

i agree the proof of the pudding is in the proof....but i am just typing/reasoning for fun. after logging off i may never return to the site.

Euclidean geometry makes sense if you just add an extra dimension to a plane. You can modify equations to equal the same answer. Can you really think of a reason why they wouldn't be the same everywhere? What would be altering the fundamental forces of nature? Or all of a sudden making them exist and not exist in different locations?

[ACG52]

 

after logging off i may never return to the site.

 

 

Promises, promises...

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Euclidean geometry makes sense if you just add an extra dimension to a plane. You can modify equations to equal the same answer. Can you really think of a reason why they wouldn't be the same everywhere? What would be altering the fundamental forces of nature? Or all of a sudden making them exist and not exist in different locations?

 

I can not see yet much of an answer to ... Are the laws spread about by matter,field, or universal right ?

 

* If the laws are spread by Matter then in the absence of matter , say in a void , or intergalactic, then laws may be distorted.

 

* If the laws are spread about by Fields then the laws will go everywhere fields go.

 

* If the laws are universal right then they could be the same everywhere

 

 

. . Which one , two or all or none ?

Edited January 18, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

 

It's possible to create f.e. Hydrogen with proton and muon-.

I would like to see results comparing light wave frequencies, got from regular Hydrogen with electron, and one which is using Muon- instead of electron, to verify whether used procedure really can calculate ratio of proton/electron from far distance.

 

There have been many muonic-H experiments already done. Also muonium. So if you want to see them, there's nothing stopping you.

 

 

I can not see yet much of an answer to ... Are the laws spread about by matter,field, or universal right ?

 

* If the laws are spread by Matter then in the absence of matter , say in a void , or intergalactic, then laws may be distorted.

 

* If the laws are spread about by Fields then the laws will go everywhere fields go.

 

* If the laws are universal right then they could be the same everywhere

 

 

. . Which one , two or all or none ?

 

The notion that laws could be spread by fields would seem to be counter to the concept of a field, which is the result of a law or laws which describe the field. So it seems to be a circular argument.

 

i do not believe einstein is God. i believe he made extraordinary contributions to physics which will one day be superceded. assuming all he had to say is eternally true EVERYWHERE is not the sort of thinking that will advance science. i see nothing engaging in demonstrating prowess at regurgitating equations others discovered (anyone can do that if they chose to study).

 

Good, because Einstein isn't held to be a god in science. His work is respected because some very important ideas have held up to scrutiny, which is the result of testing, and not because it was simply assumed he was right. If his work is someday superseded (which undoubtedly it will, because GR is not a quantum theory) that will not change that correctness of what has already been demonstrated, it will only limit the range of the applicability of the theories.