In a discussion with astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, Feynman said "what today, do we not consider to be part of physics, that may ultimately become part of physics?" He then goes on to say "..it's interesting that in many other sciences there's a historical question, like in geology - the question how did the Earth evolve into the present condition? In biology - how did the various species evolve to get to be the way they are? But the one field that hasn't admitted any evolutionary question - is physics."

The big question is:"Do the Laws of Physics Evolve?" Feynman thinks that "It might turn out that they're not the same all the time and that there is a historical, evolutionary question."

I believe the question is a legitimate one in physics (not just in philosophy) but I have no answer to. Only time and far more advanced observations that can go back as far as the cosmic microwave background may reveal the answer.

Even time and space can change or finish, but energy remains.

well, is a long story... non-locality may have a finite range, and this a qauntum.fluctating universe. But why our universe is quantum-fluctuating? one possible solution is in the discussion of the paper:" Can fluctuating quantum states acquire the classical behavior on large scale?". But it is a complex story...

Sorry for typing errors. Here there are the corrected text and the paper.

well, is a long story... non-locality may have a finite range, and this can happen in a quntum.fluctating universe. But why our universe should be quantum-fluctuating? one possible solution is in the discussion of the paper:" Can fluctuating quantum states acquire the classical behavior on large scale?". But it is a complex story...

Article Can fluctuating quantum states acquire the classical behavio...

We cannot COMPLETELY model reality is here to stay.

We cannot COMPLETELY model reality. OK. But we are going to understand more and more, untill there is energy because the energy is able to generate organization (lower entropy) and hence to allow us to gain information

Article Far from Equilibrium Maximal Principle Leading to Matter Sel...

Derek,

I believe there is something "absolutely immutable" but it is not part of the present physics. These are informational, or more accurately, formative 'laws', i.e. the universal 'laws' that govern the formation of objects in the Universe.

As all in physics, it is all about conventional models that hold true until they proof to be wrong.

It is ALL fiction, but a fiction that helps us understanding HOW things happen.

The difficulties exist when we start discussing WHY things happen.

Gravitation and the falling apple example, explains that the apple will fall and describes how it falls, but it does not give any insight on why it falls.

Statements such the apple fell because of the gravity, are commonly accepted but essentially wrong.

Remember that t-shirt:

http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/65a4/

“The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday

thinking.”

—Albert Einstein, 1936 in Physics and Reality.

Nothing is 100% certain neither in life nor in physics. A scientific theory is still a theory, albeit a very well substantiated one.Theories can be improved (or replaced by better theories) as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time; this increased accuracy corresponds to an increase in scientific knowledge. IMHO, the only thing we actually know that cannot change under any circumstances is that there is nothing that cannot change under any circumstances.

When a theory is improved or replaced it does not mean that what the entire knowledge contains in the old theory is obsoleted. Within a certain level of accuracy, the relations expressed by the old theory are still true as ever. The new theory is more accurate and subsume the old relations into a more encompassing relational frawework. It is not a total invalidation of the old theory which remain valid within certain limited boundaries.

Let me emphasize it again. The only possible "immutable", i.e. not evolving, laws, if they exist at all, must be of informational nature. In other words, if it turns out that the informational reality underlines, or 'guides', the physical (spatial) one, only then we might have some kind of "immutable" (informational) laws.

If laws are not immutable, what about underlying invariances and principles?

For example is the principle of Occam's razor immutable? Is our simple notion that objects are countable immutable on all scales?

Are there some ratios of fundamental constants that we can hold to be immutably invariant? In some cases the whole universe may collapse if they they change.....but I guess we might yet all collapse!

All the description of the world that has existed and will exist will probably use natural numbers. This is a very basic aspect of physics.

Louis

You said "When a theory is improved or replaced it does not mean that what the entire knowledge contains in the old theory is obsoleted".

I agree, except that this is strictly not true in general. There are obsolete theories.

One example of a theory found to be baseless and is discarded is the phlogiston theorem. This theorem was first stated in1667 by Johann Joachim Becher. It postulated a fire-like element called phlogiston, contained within combustible bodies, that is released during combustion. The theory attempted to explain burning processes such as combustion and rusting, which are now collectively known as oxidation. This theorem was entirely replaced by quite different concept of energy and related laws and is obsolete.

A more recent example is from Cosmology. The Steady State Theory, a model developed by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle whereby the expanding universe was in a steady state, and had no beginning. It was a competitor of the Big Bang model until evidence supporting the Big Bang and falsifying the steady state was found. IMHO, even the BB theory is itself tentative. Can you be absolutely sure 100% that in the future BB theory will not be superseded or even become obsolete? That is the essence of what I meant by: the only thing we actually know that cannot change under any circumstances is that there is nothing that cannot change under any circumstances.

On the issues of dark matter and dark energy, Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, said "We've hit some really profound problems with cosmology with dark matter and dark energy. That tells us we have to rethink fundamental physics and try something new."

Science is constantly changing because new experiments result in new discoveries and because new technology is helping experimentalists to perform experiments that were not possible in the past and to perform far more accurate experiments that are able to either prove our old theories right, prove them wrong or come out with new theories.

Derek

IMHO, scientific laws, as with other scientific knowledge, do not have absolute certainty. It is always possible for laws to be overturned by future observations or more accurate measurements. So yes laws are not immutable. A principle is just another (analogous) term for scientific law and so it too cannot be considered immutable.

Umar

The quote is by John Allen Paulos: “Uncertainty is the only certainty there is, and knowing how to live with insecurity is the only security.”

Of course, such cute aphorisms do not have much to do with the future of science, although they do confuse many young researchers. ;--)

Derek

On a more serious note, on the principle of Occam's Razor, you asked "is the principle of Occam's razor immutable?" The answer is that the principle of Occam's razor does not always describe reality and so cannot be considered immutable.

"The basic idea behind Occam's razor is that in a choice between two ideas, both of equal explanatory power, then one should choose the simplest. ( For example, the best law is the simplest one that fits the data-the example is mine and is not part of the original text).

It is used for more than that, however: as A.R. Lacey’s A Dictionary of Philosophy states, “A stronger form claims that only what cannot be dispensed with is real and that to postulate other things is not only arbitrary but mistaken.”

Armed with this information, let us notice what Occam’s Razor is not. It is not a law of mathematics like the Pythagorean Theorem. It is not a constant, like gravitational force. It is not even an arbitrary designation. (As Bertrand Russell observed, even in the deepest regions of space there are still three feet in a yard. Naturally, since humans invented the yard.) Speaking of which, it’s not a natural law either.

Occam’s Razor is a principle; which is to say, a piece of advice. Like “Look before you leap” or “He who hesitates is lost.” Its truth-value is entirely dependent on its functional utility in the real world. Therefore when someone speaks of a concept or theory violating Occam’s Razor, this only means that the concept or idea is incompatible with maximal simplicity. It is not like saying a concept or idea violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or has as its consequence that 2 and 2 now equal 7.

The reason this is important is because frequently people use Occam’s Razor as if it were some sort of immutable principle, rather than a piece of advice that may or not be useful according to context. Seriously employing Occam’s Razor would have ended progress every time such an idea came forward. Relativity is more complicated than Newtonian mechanics, but has the virtue that it explains certain things (or more precisely, certain conditions) better.

In short, no one should ever feel diminished by the observation that one’s theory fails to pass the Occam’s Razor test. It is a lingering byproduct of an age long since passed. Simplicity may be a feature of one’s idea or it may not be, but this is not logically equivalent with truth. As always, the best arbiter of such matters is the accumulation of evidence, which is to say reality itself."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dulling Occam's Razor, By Joseph E. Green, Dissenting Views, Feb 13, 2010.

I think that your questions go beyond science itself,

I can understand Occam's razor at the level of a reasonable conjecture, not an immutable law.

The laws of physics are universal laws essentially because there are no exceptions observed. When something does not fit within the known physical laws, new ones appear and the boundaries of applicability of the old ones get clarified.

No. (Except that one.)

Einstein thought maybe Statistical Mechanics was "right", inasmuch as it clearly states its fundamental assumption and merely shows the consequences thereof; if the fundamental assumption is proven wrong in some cases, then it simply won't apply to those cases.

I think the only principle that cannot be violated is that in order to be considered a physical law, it must conform to the observations which it claims to apply to.

I believe that there are principles in physics that are 100% fulfilled. The point is that,as everithing in physics, one has a field of application (limiting conditions) that must be preserved to have the principle unviolated. For example, the principle of conservation of energy, out of GR(locally) which is SR, with the Noethers´ contribution. But, for the principle to be valid one has to continuously test it and see if it is still conserved. This is the scientific method that is at the base of all physics. And I remember that in some occasions the test for validity is so much involved that the result may depend on the way we put the question experimentally. Then we have to explain it.

As much as I agree with the given examples of outdated models, I think there is a principle we have to agree on, to be able to do physics at all:

That what we are percieving through our senses or instruments is, even if fallible, somehow related to what happens in this world.

Otherwise physics wouldn't be able to tell anything about the world and it would just be my physics in my mind and your physics in your mind.

The basic quantities (such as mass, spin, charge, and magnetic moment) of the 'stable elementary particles' (such as proton, electron, photon) can well be considered absolutely immutable quantities. They probably get their values from immutable natural laws. Unfortunately, we know these laws only partially.

As to observational effects: the light from distant stars gives us much information about how atoms work there. Surprisingly enough, they turn out to work just as the atoms work on earth.

The answer to this question is yes, depending on the way you interpret real world.

To illustrate the idea, consider any physical principle P. If you assume that P holds under all circumstances, then any situation under which P does not hold violates P. By contrast, if you assume that P holds with a probability X, then this assumption is compatible with any real world situation. In addition, you can increase X depending on the frequency under which P holds.

In other words, the assumption of being P true under all circumstances is a dogma, because it is not possible to be tested in every possible circumstance. By contrast, the assumption that P holds with a probability less than 1, is compatible with all possible situations.

In fact, our behavior is ruled by a probabilistic interpretation of the real world. For instance, if when traveling in plane you assume that the probability of an accident is small, no accident will contradict your assumption. However, assuming that the probability is null, every accident violates your assumption.

In general, both probabilistic interpretation of real world and fuzzy logic survive under all circumstances.

1. I think 1/r^2 distance relation in gravitational/electric force is an example of something that may be immutable. At least from practical point of view, since if this coefficient would deviate from 2, there would be no one to find out how it ended!

2. Noise seems to me bit anthropomorphic concept. It is sort of nuisance which interferes with our IMPORTANT measurement. But if we look closely, noise is an expression of dynamics too complex and “miniscule” for our measurement approach.

One example could be the arrow of time.

Ah well, perhaps not. Zeno knew a thing or two, but when? More in terms of modern physics, here's a playful summary of our bafflement: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/science/space/a-black-hole-mystery-wrapped-in-a-firewall-paradox.html?src=me&_r=0

Math is a language of Physics. But Math has deal only with abstract objects. 2+2=4 is valid only for such abstract objects as numbers. And in general concepts of "equal" has sense only for abstract math objects. Here is a main problem of Physics. The problem of using such a language for description of the real objects. As to noise contribution it is in breaking of the such math models as irrarional numbers, and in general all models, which dealing with the infinity.

As much as I agree with Susann Nowak, we need to keep an open mind and brace ourselves for shocking observations that may suggest that the laws of physics may change across the universe:

J.K Webb et al., Indications of a Spatial Variation of the Fine Structure Constant, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 191101 (2011).

J. K. Webb et al., 2012, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 422, 3370

New evidence supports the idea that we live in an area of the universe that is "just right" for our existence. The controversial finding comes from an observation that one of the constants of nature, the ‘fine-structure constant, appears to be different in different parts of the cosmos. If correct, this result stands against Einstein's equivalence principle, which states that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. the fine structure constant, also known as alpha, determines the strength of interactions between light and matter.

Even more surprising is the fact that the change in the constant appears to have an orientation, creating a "preferred direction", or axis, across the cosmos. Results indicate that alpha varies in space rather than time.That idea was dismissed more than 100 years ago with the creation of Einstein's special theory of relativity.

The universe seems to have a large alpha on one side and a smaller alpha on the other and Earth sits somewhere in the middle of the extremes for alpha. If correct, the result would explain why alpha seems to have the finely tuned value that allows chemistry – and thus life – to occur. Grow alpha by 4 per cent, for instance, and the stars would be unable to produce carbon, making our biochemistry impossible.

Michael Murphy, one of the co-authors says the evidence for changing constants is piling up. "We just report what we find, and no one has been able to explain away these results in a decade of trying," Murphy told New Scientist. "The fundamental constants being constant is an assumption. We're here to test physics, not to assume it."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Laws of physics may change across the universe, New Scientist, Sept. 2010

It should be pointed out that different techniques are needed to confirm or contradict the results, as Webb, et al., also concluded in their study.

I think because Universe is growing, the laws of physics grow also.

For example in the first "moment" of Big Bang was created the Time (I think because the space) and all the "things" and the beginning of laws. If all is created from 0, all is growing from this. I think grow from constant basis that not change, but more complicated every time. Basis not change, grow over, I think, but all things changes following this basis that can grow.

I think for example that spin 1/2 is more sophisticated than 1 (but this is only a feeling).

In a discussion with astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, Feynman said "what today, do we not consider to be part of physics, that may ultimately become part of physics?" He then goes on to say "..it's interesting that in many other sciences there's a historical question, like in geology - the question how did the Earth evolve into the present condition? In biology - how did the various species evolve to get to be the way they are? But the one field that hasn't admitted any evolutionary question - is physics."

The big question is:"Do the Laws of Physics Evolve?" Feynman thinks that "It might turn out that they're not the same all the time and that there is a historical, evolutionary question."

I believe the question is a legitimate one in physics (not just in philosophy) but I have no answer to. Only time and far more advanced observations that can go back as far as the cosmic microwave background may reveal the answer.

There is nothing in physics that we can be absolutely certain will never change. We must ultimately keep an open mind to anything changing and be absolutely certain of that.

Noise as an integral part of any physical model. This should be followed by at least from the fact that there can not be fully isolated physical system in an infinite space-time. The effect of these tails leads to the fact that the noise appears even for models such as the hydrogen atom - the polarization of the vacuum. Therefore, physics needs a new mathematical language. As for the homogeneous and isotropic space it is the transition from the Fourier-Laplace transform to Karhunen-Loeve transform. Even more challenging is the question of symmetry breaking.

We do not still have a complete picture (i.e., mathematical model). We cannot understand what is time, space and others physical quantity at very high concentrations, energy and gravitational field, or viceversa in a universe with zero temperature of background radiation. Quantum and classical world live together but in the mind of many people this fact is still conflicting (see attached publ.)..... and we still not consider relativistic effects and non-euclidean space......

Article Can fluctuating quantum states acquire the classical behavio...

Just a couple thoughts:

(1) if someone were to propose one or several substantive answers to the question, how would we know whether the conjecture is true or not?

(2) Karl Popper's view of science as a neverending enterprise of refinements/revisions trying to better approach Reality would suggest not. Certainly at the level of models and math, it doesn't seem qualitatively possible to reach a complete description and explanation of anything, much less the cosmos.

(3) Per H.E., the best conjecture I might propose for this universe might be the 2nd law of thermodynamics...but there are various speculations on conditions and universes where the arrow of time is flipped (or discontinuous or flipping), so see (1) above.

(4) Lee Smolin's recent book, Time Reborn, grapples with this issue, arguing in the negative. His earlier book, The Life of the Cosmos, examines the notion of natural selection operating on universes. The various multiverse conjectures could include universes where fundamental laws are immutable, as well as those that aren't (which presumably would be an argument in the negative, since immutability would not be a general condition).

Given the historical record, the answer must be "no." But some accepted precepts, like the conservation in energy in isolated systems, have quite high barriers to overthrow, as they are consistent with a vast array of phenomena that seem to be well understood. That being said, even the great Niels Bohr once entertained the concept that conservation of energy was only approximate. Conservation of parity was once thought to be ironclad, until experiments showed otherwise. So was lepton flavor conservation. Physics is an experimental science, nothing is known with absolute certainty.

Yes. We live inside a universe of fluctuations. We only have probabilities, and may be the only probability that is equal to 1 is that we exist (Descartes, I think, then I exist).

I think that physics describes the nature/natural processes and even processes resulting from the nature itself, like consciousness, for instance. Consequently, physics reflects the general knowledge of the "man" and all its concepts should have an evolution in line with the evolution of "man's" knowledge.

Speaking about the immutable truths of physics laws, one question has to be answered: are we, with our limited capabilities, able to understand the unlimited nature and its properties? My answer would be: NO. So, our knowledge has a permanent, gradual evolution which will asymptotically arrive to the full understanding of the material processes.

Though, I think that one immutable truth in physics is: the conservation of energy, fields and mass considered in their permanent and immutable connections.

The biggest mystery in my opinion, is the fact that some of the mathematical concepts that have no physical meaning, such as a plane wave, lead to predictable results of physical experiments. In areas such as cosmology and the theory of experimental particle, where the experimental verification is difficult, math completely comes off physical reality. As to Physics itself, on my opinion, constant components are only symmetry and interaction. As a simple example I will give diffraction, where on the basis of the conservation of symmetry one can predict the results of experiments not penetrating into the nature of the interaction of radiation with matter.

@Rudo,

my inductive capacities are not reliable enough to decipher what you are talking about.

As always, a very nice, thought provoking question that has provoked much thought and comment already.

I have only skimmed the above responses, so apologies if this has already been said. For me, as a physicist, one of my starting principles is that there is an objective reality and that there are physical laws that describe that reality. I personally regard such a viewpoint as necessary to perform objective science, and from that sense I would regard this as being inviolate. Note that I do not assume any structure to those laws - to understand and apply those laws is the task at hand.

Now there are many approaches that have been made to try and create 'reasonable' universes where the laws and/or constants appear 'naturally': I worry that many of these are either untestable or suffer from the biases of those proposing them - still it is a sensible approach to try and determine what subset of the total mathematical laws (which I would regard as inviolable) actually apply in our universe.

One of the issues that has come up in this thread (and also from your posing of the question) is that of the variation in the constants, and that it now appears that we must treat the constants as being only 'locally constant', or more precisely that the constants are a function of the state of the universe. This suggests new testable approaches to me (not least of all as I believe that the shift in the constants has not yet been seen in high precision laboratory based tests, which further implies that either the rate of change is non-linear, or more likely environment dependent). But one would still imagine that there exists an underlying law that governs the evolution of the constants. And if this shows variation, then naturally there is an underlying law to that etc.

I am also not excited by Occam's razor (in keeping with many of the previous posters), as this is merely a principle that we should apply without information, but which doesn't actually provide any more information about resolution between competing hypotheses.

So to return to the original question: are there any principles that humans have discovered that we should consider inviolate? The 1/r^2 law has been mentioned, but in reality this is a function of the symmetry of the space in which the interaction is carried out. General relativity looks pretty good at present, although the apparent incompatibility with quantum mechanics must suggest that it is probably only an approximation. Quantum mechanics (as those who know me will attest) is a field that looks strong, but which we must treat with scepticism and everyone _wants_ to be violated (still, despite some of the comments of other ResearchGaters, I doubt that it will be violated any time soon). But for me, I will simply quote Eddington in the assertion that thermodynamics represents a set of inviolable laws that every physical theory must obey:

"The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

In our quest for reaching the truth, we discover laws and assume that they are static. However we realize that full truth still evades us and that is why the laws made for partial truth have to change. The famous breaks from classical physics gave birth to quantum physics because we had to explain black body radiation correctly. Similarly at the time of Bohr atomic model. Some laws look to be fundamental- conservation of energy and momentum etc. But then at scales which are extremely small, we need to incorporate some uncertainties into these too. Is truth unique? Is is truth dynamic? Is there any possibility for c in vacuum also to change? The fundamental constants seem unique.

Scientist must ask themselves seriously if physics is the ultimate science. Evolution of science is the story of the discoveries of how wrong the brain is about its models, not the evolution of "universal laws". Most people like to believe that most phenomena have been understood, but most profound concepts are elusive: light, energy, charge, entropy, time, wave equations, etc. are just some examples. Real phenomena like complexity and emergence are left out of the physics (no physical concept for them) despite they are part of this universe. Even physical problems like n-body systems are unsolved by physics, so help must found in computer science, that, by the way, is NOT physics. Moreover, computer science is a more "compact" and complete science!, general systems theory offers concepts that apply to physical and non physical entities, some "physics laws" can be inferred from its principles. To ask if there are absolute principles in physics is useless unless we understand their universal (and not just their physical) meaning.

Every now and then (in decades!) we find so significant laws like Coulomb's law, and Newton's law of Gravitation on which the whole complexity of universe is based also getting interpreted differently at atomic level. The laws in principle remain and for point objects they look fundamental and valid for eternity. But when we perceive these through quantum field theory, things get complicated. In any case they are meant to be valid for eternity.

It is an interesting question. Andrew has earlier quoted Eddington on the second law - thinking of thermodynamics as an emergent phenomena the following might seem reasonable: there exists inviolate and immutable phenomena from which the second law emerges. However, it is conceivable that the underlying laws might not be inviolate and immutable but, so long as they changed in the "right" way they could leave intact an emergent law such as the entropy never decreasing. Is the second law then an inviolate and immutable law or not?

Our first assumption when engaging in science, in the modern sense, is that there is an objective reality. The second may be the existence of such inviolate and immutable laws - but it is only an assumption I do not see how we could ever prove the existence of such laws. I too would like to think that if the laws of nature change in predictable way then the law plus the law that governs its change are in fact just one inviolate and immutable law - but this is just supposition (I hope its a good one though - the alternative is quite scary!!).

PS. just a quick note as 1/r^2 has been mentioned - and as Andrew has pointed out is not inviolate - laws of this form are just a corollaries of a deeper Gauss type law - which may have more of a chance of being inviolate.

Adding to Rudo Lee's point Karl Popper in "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" well argued against inductive reasoning. We have as the tools of our trade repeatability and falsifiability but not inductive reasoning.

@Andrew Greentree

@ "For me, as a physicist, one of my starting principles is that there is an objective reality and that there are physical laws that describe that reality"

I like to refer you to the work of Nancy Cartwright (et al) who has quite an other opnion, see for instance her book

"How the laws of physics lie"

Andrew

Cartwright: forgot to attach the book in case you might want to scan thru

A short note of 4 pages on the current debate on (your) realism versus anti-realism, with respect to physical theories/laws is here:

http://www.units.muohio.edu/eduleadership/faculty/quantz/Courses/Beebee3.pdf

Actually I would be very grateful for your opinion on this issue

@Rudo, inductive reasoning is a proper part of the scientific discovery process. For convincing the community of a discovery, one better relies on the 'tools of our trade' as listed in Mark's last contribution. BTW, animals that change color or come in various colors by no means transcend the (even inductive) capabilities of typical scientists.

Hi Rudo - I partly agree that induction may be useful if one wants to put forward a particular model i.e. trend spotting. But once that model is in place it needs to be destruction tested - which is no longer inductive reasoning (maybe I am being too much of a pedant here - please feel free to ignore me if you think so).

Hu Rudo, I think my use of "inductive" is more restrictive than yours but do broadly agree with your point of view as you have just explained it.

second law in the totally. Yes.

But, why local order like life?

Why a local order like a new star?

My personal opinion about this question is the one that follows: We, as human beings, observing the cosmos and the physical phenomena around us, are only part of the cosmos, we are inside the cosmos with a plethora of physical phenomena needed to be ordered in our minds. Our minds are, nevertheless, not limited by any pure construction or work hypothesis (whatever we consider, laws of conservation, etc.); in a sense we are free to reorder the cosmos in our minds, but nature doesn't works necessarily to obey any theoretic immutable point of departure or a last definitive word about physics laws. I think there are, what may be called open frontiers to the physics knowledge, but because of its open character, we cannot pass through.

@Harry ten Brink,

Thank you for sending the link - I'll need to have a more serious read before commenting seriously. I glanced at the abstract and find myself instinctively disagreeing with the central thesis - but I think that more considered reflection will be required ;).

It appears that @Mark Everitt and I are in close agreement, but at risk of redundancy I will restate my belief that a set of physical laws exist - perhaps at a deeper level than any of the laws that we presently have (which may, for example, permit the evolution of the observed laws), so perhaps these fundamentals are somehow 'metalaws', and that the existence of this set of laws implies an objective reality. Without such an assumption I think that we have serious problems confirming objective reality (i.e. two observers observing the same phenomena will agree on the results of observations, although not necessarily the explanation), and reproducibility (sets of identical experiments will result in the same outcomes up to requirements of quantum mechanics, so more precisely, identical experiments must result in same final wavefunction/probability distribution).

Note despite the rather useful discussion on induction above, the point I am making is not about how we determine this set of laws, nor how close our connection to the `truth' is. I personally believe that with vast majority of quantum mechanics we are very close indeed to a `true' description of reality, but we can only remain confident up until we discover a counter-example. But whether we are in some sense close, or you may take the view that by definition we are infinitely far away, I still believe that there actually are laws to uncover.

@Fernando Angeles

I really must take exception to some of your comments regarding the limitations of physics as a science. Physics is intimately concerned with interacting systems, problems of complexity and emergent phenomena. You mention that the N-body problem is unsolved - I can only assume that you mean the general N-body problem, which is unsolved from the point of view of physics, maths and computer science. However particular N-body problems, well that's the entire field of condensed matter physics.

Physics as a science is really a way of thinking about problems, about reduction to the essential elements and then recombining them to derive understanding and make inferences about real systems. Computer Science is extremely useful, and as a theorist I use computers all the time, but it is just a tool and not 'a more "compact" and complete science!'. Indeed, in my opinion one of the most exciting topics in physics, quantum information science, comes about precisely from understanding the physics of computation (in a very fundamental way) and applying quantum mechanical laws to the logical operations.

So I will accept that there are aspects of mathematics that are outside physics because we can conceptualise and explore concepts without physical meaning, and by extension, as computer science is really about ways of doing maths with computers, yes there is more there too, but I do not accept that computer science has anything above physics in describing reality, and I do not understand what you mean be a 'universal' rather than 'physical' meaning.

On the one hand, I think that the term "inviolable" only can be used in colloquial language. All physical laws are inviolable. When under some circumstances a physical law does not hold, the interpretation must be that such a law is erroneous and must be modified.

For instance, if it were assumed the light speed to be the same under all circumstances, when observed to be different inside a crystal, the consequence does not consists of interpreting that the law is violated, but it is erroneous and must be modified stating that the light speed in the air and inside a crystal are not the same.

Physical law violations are called miracles and belong to the scope of religion or magic thought.

On the other hand, all physical laws are mutable and must be modified whenever it is required by experience.

Fernando Angeles,

we ARE physics.

(We know part of it, only that).

Without our set of physical laws we coul not continuous our regular motion in Universe.

There is One that is the same; yesterday, today, and forever...always the same; without change. (References supplied upon request)

I think it is unreasonable for our set of physical laws to have evolved.

Whereas it is true from an inquisitive perspective the evolution of such laws might be as one would say theoretically possible. The question becomes 'Is it probable?'. When we consider the fine tuning of the cosmos with all the precise physical constants, we should arrive at the conclusion that it is not probable for the evolution of the physical laws to have occurred.

Either everything change or nothing change. I choose the first option.

I would take an intermediate position: there are some things that change and others that do not. Ans I also think that what we observe as changing may be it is not (because we are the ones that are changing) and viceversa. Pure relativity.

Michael, just discussing, not critiquing...but you and I look at the fine tuning and arrive at different conclusions about probability - when I look at equisite fine tunings in biology (though there are plenty of awkward work arounds too), I don't conclude that it's probably not due to evolution. I previously referenced Lee Smolin's The Life of the Cosmos, which argued that interesting universes amenable to complexity and life could be explained by evolution via natural selection. I don't conclude that that is probable, but I don't conclude that fine tuning implies 'not probable'. For what it's worth, I'm thinking about the impact and role of historicity on the Reality that most of us agree is a common assumption to enable doing science. One could go all general in the other direction (e.g. many-worlds) and trivialize historicity...but my personal experience is that historicity is pretty critical in 'this' world. The context matters - to a cicada, a forest is eternal; to an aborigine, similarly a mountain range. But we know that such long term phenomena change over geological or astronomical time. Someone else can do the calcuation to estimate the degree of precision needed to notice e.g. any given degree of slowing in the velocity of light - 10 years? 10,000 years? of exquisitely precise scientific observations? but until technical resolution crosses the threshold of any such long term change, it would seem unchanging - just another instance of the problem of induction. Which is why I asked previously, how would one know? But I digress. In the totality of theoretically possible design space, all things may be possible. But in actual worlds in time, there may be practical constraints that stem from being actual, and laws like the 2nd law of thermodynamics and Adrian Bejan's constructal law ('for a finite-size flow system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must evolve in such a way that provides easier access to the currents that flow through it') may be candidates for general laws that are 'inviolate' for such worlds. But I could be wrong.

Antonio,

We as individual persist for a while but never the same constantly changing. All astronomical bodies constantly changes. Everything has an history. When an entity seems to be unchanging, it is only because it appear so at the spatial and temporal and precision scale of the measurements being performed. Science and knowledge is possible because some aspects of reality are sufficiently slow for us to assume them to be constant.

Louis.

I mostly agree with you. Nevertheless I believe in some aspects that are under debate. For example, the dark energy of the universe manifests itself by expanding it and has a constant energy density. Of course this may change and we will have to explain it using the scientific method. And this is a constant enterprise, which is what you are saying in a way. And the best explanations are surviving until the next scientific revolution. And I am very happy with this situation: if everything were constant, like the old idea of a stationary universe, that would be very boring, do not think so?

Many of the responses to this question presented here presume empirical universals--conservation of energy, cognitive science, etc.--when empiricism necessarily constitutes a closed axiomatic system. Empiricism presupposing observation, when observation presupposes space and time, then empiricism presupposes space and time.

In turn, space and time are infinitely divisible and expandable. Occurring within infinite extension, observation is necessarily indeterminate. Edmund Gettier's critiques of justified true belief illustrating this. Determinacy is provided only when the observer constrains the infinity of time and space by nominal limits. This is the point of Kant's first and second antinomies.

Constitutive of a limit in this context is the inclusive identity of all dependent variables as a dense set. Such is manifest in algebra by designating dense (effectively geometric) entities within arithmetic formulas by letters instead of numbers. Each a fused whole, they can be only "named" (A, B,...) not enumerated, because cardinally individually each has the same value: "1."

Nominally composed in this manner at its axiomatic foundation, empirical analysis constitutes an "ought," a value. Only as constituted, as accepting this nominal axiom, is empiricism an "is," a fact WITHIN the context of its limits. So, "Are there any aspects of physics that are inviolate and absolutely immutable?" External to the current axioms of physics, the answer is "no." But, internal to the current axioms of physics, the answer is "yes," the foundational axioms themselves.

Hey Don, I gotta channel Feynman here. He'd say, after a pregnant pause, "Don't listen to that stuffed shirt, he's just trying to make the obvious inaccessible by burying it in jargon and namedropping." This is the sort of stuff that gives academics a bad name. I won't ask you to make your pronunciamentos accessible, because you won't; probably you can't. But as long as you've brought up the issue of distortion by presupposition, I will ask you to explain WHY you suppose that "observation presupposes space and time" -- without referring to anyone else's ideas or using words that the average scientist would have to go look up in Wikipedia.

So here's the thing. Can we discuss the fundamentals of science (which at one point was the issue driving this thread) using lay language?

@JC and Donald:

It's not a matter of lay language:

>

is also an incredible distortion of mathematical language. I would be interested in seeing Donald transforming this blunder into a decent thought.

Donald,

'' observation presupposes space and time''

Observation presupposed a measuring instruments and a numerical system for expressing the measurements. Space and time are abstract concepts which a few theoretical physicists can begin to understand.

'', space and time are infinitely divisible and expandable. ''

Quantum physicists seems to tell us that based on their theory which is based on Hilbert Space of continuous complex functions that our space time cannot be divided undefinitly. And general relativity accepts the unlimited divisibility but seem to imply a finte universe without boundary. The infinite universe is a less popular option.

IIDeterminacy is provided only when the observer constrains the infinity of time and space by nominal limits. This is the point of Kant's first and second antinomies.''

I do not follow you here. Could you explain? I do not understand the last two paragraphs.

Regards

@JC:

Another thing I believe Feynman would have said here is, "If you can't explain it to your grandmother, you probably don't understand it." Assuming your grandmother is willing and able to listen attentively, of course.

Jargon is useful as an abbreviation or condensation for long, complicated constructions, under certain circumstances -- e.g. when your audience is composed of certified "experts" and/or has authorized you to use it. It has no place in a semi-public discussion like this, where you cannot prearrange a restricted audience.

We are supposedly all "scientists" here; what does that mean? I'd like to think it means that we share a commitment to discover what is the case and what is not, if possible, and to explain what we have concluded (and how we have discovered it) to anyone willing to listen. I'm quite certain it does NOT mean that we are all experts in every field with which we choose to engage. I certainly am not. Every one of us is a "lay person" in almost every category of human knowledge, and so it behooves us all to extend the courtesy of "plain talk" to anyone who takes the trouble to read what we write -- because next time WE may be the "ignoramus".

PS: Yes, I do violate my own rule from time to time, usually in the heat of a "Battle with the King of the Philistines" -- referring of course to the chapter in James Branch Cabell's "Jurgen". ;-)

What have I done?! Being obscure enough, I limited science to space and time because I thought it the most widely acceptable depiction. To express more would get into, gulp, the discussion I’m involved in now.

Relevant is the distinction between relativity and quantum theory. Einstein was a neo-Kantian who considered the scientific observer to intrinsically categorize experience in space and time. More under the influence of axiomatic theory inherited from modern mathematics, quantum theorists do not consider space and time as inherent in scientific observation. Rather, the observer creates the context of observation. Illustratively, Werner Heisenberg asserts,

it is not possible to decide, other than arbitrarily, what objects are to be considered as part of the observed system and what as part of the observer’s apparatus. [Werner Heisenberg, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory, trans. Carl Eckart and F. C. Hoyt (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1949), 64.]

Other supportive quotations from other major quantum theorists can be given, but this response is already getting out of hand. Importantly, by identifying the observer as creator of the context of observation out of the welter of infinity, effectively, quantum theory is understanding the "controlled experimental observation" as nominal. It is in this sense that observation is an "ought," breaking down the "is/ought" distinction.

Anyway, yeah, I considered the spatio/temporal limitation prudent for the context of this site in my first post, and was I wrong!

As for Feynman, outside of physics, you can find almost anything you want in his writings, but always charmingly expressed. So being, I’ll limit myself to the following. Affirmatively, “There are no ‘wheels and gears’ beneath this analysis of Nature, if you want to understand Her, this [calculating probabilities] is what you have to take.” [Richard P. Feynman, QED: the strange theory of light and matter (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2006), 78.]

However, although “so,”

"the difference between pure mathematics and physics is that the equations of physics have a conceptual component. . . . because of the nature of scientific method, [scientific theories] cannot specify the whole meaning of their concepts. There may be, and likely is, an irreducible metaphysical element to all physical concepts." [John Gribbin and Mary Gribbin, Richard Feynman, A Life in Science (Dutton, Penguin Books, 1997), http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm.]

So, physics is positivistic ("[calculating probabilities] is what you have to take"), but the physicist can engage in natural philosophy ("There may be, and likely is, an irreducible metaphysical element to all physical concepts") whenever seeing fit. And, Feynman saw fit to engage in natural philosophy in his investigation into such matters as the character of light. All this when Feynman made it abundantly clear he considered philosophers befuddled fools. The guy drives me nuts!

@Donald:

If there is an afterlife, you just brought a smile to Feynman's lips. If there isn't, the rest of us will just have to smile for him. :-)

If it makes you feel any better, I think ol' Dick also considered most physicists to be befuddled fools; but perhaps he preferred our brand of befuddlement, since he was usually fairly courteous about eviscerating our foolishness. Usually.

Anyway, I still don't quite understand your basic point about the original question. Could you put it in such blunt, crude terms that I can't possibly misinterpret it (though of course I would miss all the delicious subtleties)? E.g. (not wanting to put words in your mouth, this is just an example) "Physicists don't understand the difference between axiomatic theory and empirical handwaving; they just make up metaphorical models at random, and if experiments agree with their predictions they call them Laws." (I'm pretty sure my son would agree with that one; maybe I do too. But ya gotta do what ya gotta do!)

I’m at a loss at what Donald is saying but that could be because physics is not my area of expertise. However, I do believe that until there is a viable and accepted grand unifying theory, nothing is immutable.

Dear Clark,

You have written:

I think that historical record cannot contain every possible phenomena. This is why I prefer logic and then the answer is "yes". If the existence of any phenomenon, law or object leads to a contradiction, then it must be rejected. According to this principle, the arrow of time must be inmutable. If it were possible to turn it towards past, then we would be able to modify some conditions determining our present. For instance, you could kill your own parents when they were young, so then you cannot ever exist and, consequently, your parents cannot be killed by you. This contradiction prevents against turning the arrow of time backwards.

Dear Jess Brewer,

You're pushing me into a sensitive area. During the previous nineteen days, there were four in a row during which I was in the intellectual company of physicists. What I learned is theoretical physicists, at least, construct self-contained axiom systems, without any pre-existent conception of a physical "reality" upon which these axiom systems are constructed. If you want to say this constitutes, ""Physicists . . . just make up metaphorical models at random, and if experiments agree with their predictions they call them Laws," I suppose you can. As for myself, I am more kind. My first reaction to these conversations were about as critical as your quotation, but after thinking about it, what else can be expected? Assuming a Cartesian "reality" beyond human sensation, which can be "known" only in sensory experience, when sensory experience, especially in experimental contexts, is discontinuous, all one can do is IMAGINATIVELY construct an integrating order. For this I cannot condemn theoretical physicists, or even experimental physicists. After all, in experimental physics, statistical correlation is an imposition onto disparate observations by the statistician. Effectively, the statistician is ASSUMING integration of the observations. Nothing wrong with that, insofar as we all proceed in this way in every day life. That things don't always work out merely illustrates the underlying presumption of integrated order.

No inviolate or immutable aspects in PHYSICS does not necessarily translate to no inviolate or immutable aspects in the UNIVERSE, which unless floridly psychotic both theoretical and experimental physicists alike immutably and inviolately assume.

Hmmm... it seems to me that the assumption of a 'Cartesian "reality"' is the most obvious alternative to Solipsism. Since neither can be demonstrated or refuted except by personal preference, I attribute my belief in Cartesian "reality" (and that of most, if not all, physicists) to an aesthetic commitment, not to an avoidance of "florid psychosis". Are Solipsists all floridly psychotic? Says who? Who is to say that Solipsists are not exactly correct, that we are not all the creators of our own realities, or that the Cartesian reality is not simply a consensual construct we abide within so that we can share experience? Further, is there any real conflict between such a view and the aesthetic commitment to a Cartesian reality?

And light is both a particle AND a wave...certain religious perspectives have long held that objective reality is the subjective creation in the mind of a creator. I've been skeptical of Stephen Jay Gould's concept of non-overlapping magisteria, but have a hard time imagining how science could opine on the concept of divine solipsism...I suppose encroaching maturity inures one to some disappointments in life.

I don't believe that there are any aspects of physics that are inviolate and absolutely immutable. All science, including physics, is a product of biology and is constrained as well as empowered by the biophysical properties of the human cognitive brain. We are not omniscient, so we can have no immutable knowledge about physical reality.

''Are there any aspects of physics that are inviolate and absolutely immutable?''

Physics evolves towards more unified and universal and accurate description of the universe using mathematics for its expression and the experimental method for its validation. Parmenides claimed that ''Nothing Changes''. If he was right then physics will gradually converge towards a gradually more static form and gradually become more immutable. Heraclitus claimed the ''Everthing flows''. If he was right then physics will never converge towards a fixed reality because the ground of reality is not fixed.

Ah, Philosophy... No question elicits more plentiful, passionate responses than one which obviously has no "correct" answer.

As most physicists apparently seem to be, I guess much of the debate here shows that I am strongly positivist in my approach, and that remarkably, other thinkers might have differing opinions. Naturally I can't disprove solipsism, but if I really believed it I'm sure that I could find better things to do with the sole mind in the universe than responding to Research Gate ;)

Quantum mechanics seems to push towards a strongly positivist approach (and indeed Bell-type studies seem to place aspects of positivism on firm empirical footing by ruling out hidden variables). Hence I fall back on my earlier statement that I believe an objective reality exists. And implicitly I believe that the scientific method requires that. Without such a reality, there would be no guarantee that observers observing the same event could agree on the same outcomes. Note that relativity does not contradict this, although we have to seriously question what parameters can be agreed on as they are not the Newtonian variables.

I'm going to make some specific responses in the next few posts so that this is somewhat managable.

@Donald Poochigan says: "Physicists . . . just make up metaphorical models at random, and if experiments agree with their predictions they call them Laws,"

I find this to be one of the least insightful summaries of theoretical physics that I have ever heard. Models are based on predictive power. Sometimes these come from observations of underlying mathematical structure, sometimes from abstraction of the observed interactions, but this suggests a model where stoned physicists keep saying things like "let's see what happens if Energy is conserved, that'd be wild if it were true". (Or for an alternative idea of what might happen in such a model, see: http://www.theonion.com/articles/worlds-top-scientists-ponder-what-if-the-whole-uni,712/).

The important issue is that there is no cultural relativity in physics, and we know this because the final arbiter of 'truth' in physics is Nature. Do the experiment, test your assumptions, demonstrate no contradictions with experiments, and where contradictions are found - discover which aspects are incorrect. This method can only work if some aspect of the laws of physics are indeed correct. Note that I do not mean our understanding of the laws of physics, the actual laws that actually ensure that the reality we observe is real. And we know that at some level, this reality contains 'elements of reality' in the EPR sense, and quantum mechanics tells us a significant amount about the significance of these elements of reality.

We have no examples of mutually contradictory physics (quantum and gravity are not mutually contradictory because the experiments have not been done in the correct space, although I accept that extrapolations between the tested regimes appear contradictory, highlighting the fact that we don't yet know how to 'join the dots', and probably some new structure for relativity is required).

I mentioned earlier (I think in another of Derek's questions) that my strong belief in physics would only be shaken by an explicit proof that incompleteness actually holds in reality (rather than just mathematics), or similar. But I am yet to see any such example.

@Arnold Trehub: "All science, including physics, is a product of biology and is constrained as well as empowered by the biophysical properties of the human cognitive brain. We are not omniscient, so we can have no immutable knowledge about physical reality."

This is completely missing the point IMO, and evidencing post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking. (We biological creatures came up with the laws of physics, therefore the laws of physics are a subset of biology, therefore biology created physics). If we assume that there are laws of nature (explicitly I do, and further I believe that physics is helping us to uncover those laws), then these laws apply to physics, chemistry, biology, and even ultimately psychology and sociology (although the complexity with which those laws apply are typically so great that only general principles really extend all those scales, such as conservation of energy, or biochemical reactions).

The point is that whilst it is true that our framing and limited conception of the laws of physics is a product of our biology, the laws themselves apply irrespective of our biology: would you really expect the laws of physics that a dolphin obeys to be any different from the laws of physics that a human obeys? Do you really believe that quantum mechanical processes didn't occur before the 20th Century? All creatures have evolved to be optimised with respect to the laws of physics (without such optimisation they cannot move efficiently, sense etc.) and the fact that non-human animals appear to have less understanding than humans doesn't change the fact that they respond to the same underlying laws. Equally, the laws of physics seem to hold to fractions of a second after the big bang and across the visible universe. Whilst our present understanding of the laws of physics does not extend to the exact instant, when we say 'the laws of physics breaks down' we really mean that the laws of physics that we understand so far break down: there will be new laws, it doesn't imply that magic happens at these points where our present understanding fails us.

Sorry missed this from my earlier rant, er, post

@Donald Poochigan: "Effectively, the statistician is ASSUMING integration of the observations. Nothing wrong with that, insofar as we all proceed in this way in every day life. That things don't always work out merely illustrates the underlying presumption of integrated order."

Implied in my previous post, but not explicitly stated: where is the evidence that we can't integrate observations?

Andrew Greentree: "The point is that whilst it is true that our framing and limited conception of the laws of physics is a product of our biology, the laws themselves apply irrespective of our biology [1]: would you really expect the laws of physics that a dolphin obeys to be any different from the laws of physics that a human obeys? [2]"

1. This is a deeply misleading statement because it conflates our proposed laws of physics with the real laws of nature. The power of a law of physics depends on how well it is able to predict relevant natural phenomena. Unless the physicist is omniscient, there is no logical reason to deny that new phenomena might require a change in a currently accepted physical law. If this is the case, then, as powerful as our physical laws might now be, they are also provisional.

2. Dolphins and humans obey the laws of nature, not the laws of physics, which are the physicist's attempt to best describe the laws of nature. It might be an article of faith on the part of a physicist that the conscious experience and the behavior of a dolphin or human can be explained by the laws of physics, but the only kinds of theoretical models that have been able to predicted these kinds of natural phenomena have been psychological and biological models.

There is a real physical world, but our experience of the world and our attempt to describe what we experience is, according to the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence, a product of the neuronal mechanisms and systems in the human brain.

This is turning into a quibble-fest, as generally occurs when the points of disagreement are all semantic. It's no fun anymore. I quit.

@Arnold Trehub,

OK, your response to my response seems to clarify issues, and hence I think that perhaps we are closer than we might have thought. Jess Brewer cautions against semantics, so I am going to simply stress that (as I said above) when I talk about the laws of physics, I mean the underlying laws, and not our conception of them. You seem to be referring to these as the 'laws of nature', but if we dispute the names but agree that there are some underlying laws and there is indeed some objective reality, then we are actually in agreement in all but terminology.

There are, however, some points where I think we still depart, and perhaps further clarification is required. It is simply not true to say that the only theoretical models that are used to understand dolphins are psychological and biological models: we use hydrodynamics to understand how dolphins move, thermodynamics to understand their energy input/output, acoustics to understand their sonar, and presumably biochemistry to understand cellular interactions. That such approaches work and are not subject to the differing understandings of physics of humans and dolphins says something important about the universality of physical law. It is more than just faith that we use to make predictions about the properties of objects such as dolphins. It is also significant that dolphins really don't need to know anything about physical law to use all of these skills. The point of this was not to try and presume that dolphins are in some way limited, merely to point out that you don't need any particular knowledge to use physics and respond to physical laws.

Your last point "There is a real physical world, but our experience of the world and our attempt to describe what we experience is, according to the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence, a product of the neuronal mechanisms and systems in the human brain." is perhaps technically true, but it misses the fact that most of the most important information that we draw upon to make inferences is not part of the human body and is at best thought of as being a consequence of neuronal mechanisms. I mentioned in a separate question the fact that we obtain information about the universe from senses that far exceed those of our biology: for example neutrino sensors, X-ray telescopes, atomic force microscopes, and perhaps soon gravitational wave detectors. We also have access to new forms of proof - for example the Hales proof of the Kepler conjecture (a computer program that is unlikely to be ever confirmed by non-computer means).

Ultimately, of course we live inside these wet, warm, inefficient and spongy lumps of tissue. But we make tools to make observations of a world beyond that, and we make inferences that we compare with other entities, and we formulate laws that all evidence suggests are asymptoting towards a richer and more complete understanding of reality. I call the laws that describe that reality the laws of physics and I believe that they apply irrespective of who or what you are, irrespective of what you believe, or where in the universe you live, even irrespective of consciousness. I don't believe that we have a complete understanding of physics, and we are probably even missing very large bits of the puzzle (e.g. dark matter/dark energy). Given that there are gaps, perhaps we are by definition infinitely far away, but we are certainly closer than we were.

We are probably straying from the original question (probably happily!), but if your claim is that objective reality and some set of objective laws are inviolate and immutable aspects of physics: then we are agreed.

Andrew

Hope you do not consider this semantics but in one sentence you combine reality and believe and call that are subjective notions:

"I call the laws that describe that reality the laws of physics and

I believe that they apply"

But how do you think/believe that others conceive it? and what is the reality in relation to man-deviced instrumentation for which the probe and outcome have to be defined in human terms. There is also the metaphysical debate whether neutrinos are "real"