aaronson:
One thing you need to understand is science is subjected to change and re-evaluation that's the reason we have critiques of lots and lots of theories, physics isn't an exception. As a scholar, you can come up to critique a theory and if it holds water you would be recognized academically.

Even Albert Einstein made some dumb assumptions and postulations concerning quantum mechanics but another physicist critique that of Einstein's and he ended up being right. Einstein kept on saying "God does not play dice with the Universe" but the other guy had to disprove Einstein's initial proposition.

Physics could sometimes be crazy and complex that a theory and critique may both be right that's why I personally love physics. For example, let's take a light as a case study.

A theory explains light to be a wave. Correct!, A critique came up and proved Light existed as particles. Upon scientific observation over time, Both theories turns out to be correct. So what am I saying? Scientific theories are very open to changes prior to new evidence/observation.

Vctr:
Yes, the universe can broadly be categorised in two scales i.e the quantum and macro/real world.

I think it would be unfair to think that the universe is being ruled on a random setting. In space and our own surroundings, the laws of physics are real because we can see them and they are predictable... Nuclear fusion, thermodynamics... All of these and many more occur in outer space

but in the crazy world of quantum mechanics or should i call it "the uncertainty world" the laws of physics are shatterd. From the movement to the acceleration of particles is real randomness. This are the limits of the laws of physics

but looking deeper, the quantums are the biulding blocks of the macros. Everything we see are made up of particles/molecules and yet the macros are more organised than their constituents.
So can random+random=pattern ?.

If the cosmos were as uncertain as the quantums, would we exist?

taurus25:
Ok great scientists of nairaland, ive been thinking lately, i have been pondering on this human construct by which we claim to understand the universe called laws of physics or nature. Do certain laws really govern how everything operates in the universe?.

This thought came to mind when i read about the law breaking EM drive that seems to shatter newtons third law of motion by generating thrust from well, basically nothing.

http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published.

Its a known issue that einstein's theory of relativity doesnt hold at quantum level, because of this scientists have been on the search for an ultimate theory that unifies the both, dubbed- the theory of everything. Do we have two separate scales at which everything operates?..the quantum scale and the macro world? , or is it that we just try to make sense out of random piece of cosmic waste and call them laws.

Now, my issue is, is the universe really suppose to behave a certain way all the time?. Or is it maybe we havent fully understood the way the universe is operating.?

taurus25:

Why would the quantum really be differentiated from the real world? , because everything both the the quantum and the macro are part of the same universe. Since there are certain laws that govern how everything is suppose to act, why do some hold for the real world and break down at quantum scale.

For example, cause and effect is completely shattered at quantum level. Is it that maybe were not just explaining things correctly yet, or the universe is messing with us.

Vctr:


For now we may have to seperate this two worlds, despite the fact that they are in the same universe. It may be that the law governing the quantum world is "randomness" or "no law" .

The real and the quantum worlds are like parallel lines that will never meet(reaching a consensus) but yet the later is the origin of the former. I'm i making sense?

But in the macro world, there are forms of nature that seem to take part in the quantum party. Like the pattern/randomness in which plants/trees/flowers follow during their growth, shape/movement of an amoeba, and on a larger scale, the arrangements of stars(constellations)...

Probably in years to come, mathematicians and physicists would work closely to decode the cosmos code, then we may begin to understand the quantum party.

SirWere:
A bit late to the party.
There are already excellent responses and I sight our resident astronomer in sight but let me add my two cents kobo (cents in this time of recession ke )

---

What is a scientific law??

"A scientific law is a statement describing an observed regularity among facts, usually expressed in mathematics."

Good enough, well enough, but what are facts

For instance, one can come to the erroneous assumption that the Sun rises and sets. That is a "fact" based on observation of the phenomena as it regularly occurs. One can certainly not blame them for seeing it that way; given the limited knowledge they had.
It was a "fact" to them.

But still they were wrong.

Their scientific law;which was the frame work for the HelioCentric theory was skewed; hence their theory is wrong.

This is not a new thing; it has been happening through the centuries preceding and after the Scientific Revolution.

Trusted or assumed facts are found to be false and law are modified; theory are mowed down. In the most extreme cases (relativity; quantum- wave mechanics, evolution); a new line of thinking has to arise from the ashes of the old one.

I digress, of course. Pardon moi.

You ask; is there such a thing as laws in Physics.
I say;
In the sense that laws from physics are born from observations made, tried and rigorously tested, yes there are laws. These laws hold through and can be held reliable........at least in the real world. Newton's Law of gravity; Maxwell's electromagnetic laws.
Solid, straight and dependable

When we go to quantum mechanics; it becomes tricker though. The guidelines seem to be off and orderliness jumbles into a mass of chaos.

But does this mean there are no laws

I think not!

Quantum physics is a relatively new area of physics. It's not even a century old yet.
Compounding the problem here is that we're still trying to use the theories and laws that work in the real and macro world as a sort of guide.
Kind of like using Google Earth when driving in the villages of Osun. (Kole werk ).
It just won't work!

I feel physicists should treat quantum mechanics as a totally different branch.
Rather than puzzle and quibble over how and why quantum mechanics is so different; they should just IGNORE the disrepancies.

I liken it to this analogy.

A person who has been living all his life in Europe comes to an Osun village, suddenly.
Obviously; the priviledges and perks he knows won't apply (imagine if he was a stock broker); and he would probably get nowhere if he stubbornly tries to effect the rules he knows.

But, if he decides to calm down; shed the cityboy skin he's developed and try to get along with this society; he'll gain acceptance and knowledge!

This knowledge might not have made sense to his former self (imagine; throwing money and foodstuffs into the Osun river) but his new self will understand its supposed importance.

And once he is a fully integrated member of the village, with extensive knowledge of the community; well; I won't be surprised if he found similarities between his old life and his new one.

Perhaps he might even find the ultimate Holy Grail:

The connection between the two seperate bizzare systems.

For it was from these chaotic, semi-civilized villages that great empires rose.

Same goes for physcis

taurus25:

Nice one bro ...the quantum world is really interesting.....
Any thoughts on the EM drive?