The Laws of physics (kind of affects time travel)

M

MadMacs2010

Temporal Novice
Now, here's an argument that always used to get my mates who were studying physics and Maths degrees and whatever really fired up!

The Laws of Physics govern all things er... physical
You can prove that the Laws of Physics are universal, by testing the laws of physics on themselves.
(Or something like that)
Now here for the flamable stuff

What if the laws of physics were wrong! If the only way to prove them is by using the laws of physics, what is to say that the flaw is hiding the flaw?

Most of my friends by this time were normally so far gone to the "soft drinks" (honest ociffer thersh only coke in that glarsh!!) that we were consuming, that they all just agreed and swore blind that next time they saw their teacher that they'd smack him in the mouth!!

But once or twice I timed the statement right and got quite a nice warm discussion going.

If I remember rightly normally we ended concluding that it just meant that the whole universe was approximately 3 feet to the left of where we thought it was.

But if physics only appeared to behave the way we thought it did, then surely this could have a detrimental affect on time travel, for instance if it really was possible to travel faster than light (after all darkness is always there before the light arrives) or perhaps as in the film Back to the Future, you don't need the speed of light to travel in time just 88mph and a Delorean!

I'm not sure of the point of this thread but I learnt early on that you shouldn't just accept things for what they appear to be, you should always question, even if the answer comes back "Just because it is OKAAAAAAYYY!!!!" (My brother on the fifth time I used this at a party - not the same party I might add)

Throw me a bone here my fingers have run out of type!
 
You can prove that the Laws of Physics are universal, by testing the laws of physics on themselves.
(Or something like that)
Click to expand...
I don't think you got it quite right. See below.

What if the laws of physics were wrong! If the only way to prove them is by using the laws of physics, what is to say that the flaw is hiding the flaw?
Click to expand...
The error is that we do not prove the laws of physics with respect to themselves. We prove the laws of physics with respect to quantifiable observations (measurements).

If you review the evolution from Newton to Einstein you see how it works. Newton's F=ma was "right" only insofar as our ability to measure motion of matter when the motion is not at relativistic speeds. Einstein came along and showed how Newton's law was just a limiting case. Then Einstein went on to show how E=mc^2 explains BOTH how F=ma is correct at low velocities (with respect to light) but also how relativistic speeds would be modeled as Energy, not Force.

We can expect (and indeed it in incumbent upon) someone to come forward with a new theory that shows where Einstein was wrong. But in doing so they must show how their theory encompasses Einstein's equation as an appromimation of the more precise solution.

RMT
 
I see, so the laws of physics aren't wrong they're just incomplete, but look complete to our level of understanding, the more we understand the more we learn, and therefore the more we need to find the all encompasing rule, but then paradoxically once we have found the all encompassing rule we will similarly find that there will be more to learn and more rules to define.
 
I see, so the laws of physics aren't wrong they're just incomplete, but look complete to our level of understanding
Click to expand...
Yes, that is a very good way to put it. Especially because it deals with something that logician Kurt Godel discovered and conveyed as his theory of incompleteness. In summary what he said was: ANY closed system of logic (or symbols) is by its very nature incomplete. If for no other reason, it is incomplete because you can always form contradictory statements. For example if I make the statement "Everything I say is a lie" then how would you interpret that statement? Would it mean that everything I say is the truth?

However, some would tend to think that if any system is incomplete, how do we determine correctness, and that is when you look OUTSIDE the system for a means to verify something you have defined within that system. This is how science (a body of knowledge which will always be incomplete) looks to empircal data as a means to validate the correctness of the science. And as you point out, it leads to an understanding that we are ALWAYS learning more, and we will never reach a point where science can explain everything.

RMT
 
Back
Top