You may wish to consult the philosophical works by Ernst Mach who is one of the first, if not the first, modern scientists / philosophers who propounded specific views on the meaning of the physical laws.

I have thought maybe this conception of physics as a human management of nature is useful somehow in understanding of complex parts of quantum mechanics and general relativity?

Following the advice of Behnam Farid, I just cite here a few lines that I saw in Wikipedia, as I have difficulty in getting the recommended articles and books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach

"In his historico-philosophical studies, Mach developed a phenomenalistic philosophy of science which became influential in the 19th and 20th centuries. He originally saw scientific laws as summaries of experimental events, constructed for the purpose of making complex data comprehensible, but later emphasized mathematical functions as a more useful way to describe sensory appearances. Thus scientific laws while somewhat idealized have more to do with describing sensations than with reality as it exists beyond sensations.[17]"

In what concerns quantum mechanics, it it known that the process of measurement (by which we get into contact with the properties of quantum objects), cannot be separated from the intervention of our macroscopic instruments.

Both quantum mechanics and general relativity are rooted in experimental observations. They are therefore not different from classical mechanics; the underlying formalisms are somewhat different, but clearly without these differences they would just be classical mechanics. In my view, the cloud of mystery shrouding quantum mechanics and general relativity is totally artificial and unwarranted.

@Behnam Farid

The cloud of mystery sorrounding quantum mechanics was never removed. The terrible "collapse" postulate has unbearable implications: it implies that the future influences the past. The physicists work hard in trying to solve this dilemma.

Dear Sofia, I personally see no mystery in the 'collapse' of the wave function. The formalism of quantum mechanics is unequivocal as to how to calculate the transition matrix elements and expectation values, and frankly that is all that matters. Are we to be surprised that the solution of a linear partial differential equation (which what the time-dependent Schrödinger equation actually is) at time t1 has no 100% overlap with a particular initial-condition function at t0, t1 > t0, from which it has evolved? Or, are we to be surprised that the result of the action of an arbitrary operator on a state vector is not a simple multiple of that state itself? As a matter fact, many aspects of quantum mechanics that at first glance may appear strange or counter-intuitive disappear when one formulates quantum mechanics in terms of the hierarchy of density matrices. This is because in reality we almost never prepare a system in one of its eigenstates, but in some superposition of its eigenstates, which can be conveniently described in terms of an initial density matrix / distribution function. Monitoring the time-evolution of any specific density matrix, one can easily see how it evolves from an arbitrary initial density matrix / distribution function towards a steady-state or equilibrium-state density matrix.

In short, while quantum mechanics is certainly not the last word insofar as the description of the natural phenomena is concerned, when it is considered as a mathematical structure embedded inside a well-defined space of objects (think of the Hilbert space), there is no mystery shrouding it. By insisting that they exist, I would argue that these 'mysteries' are not unique to quantum mechanics. Ultimately, the Newtonian mechanics is similarly specified in terms of partial differential equations subject to initial and boundary conditions.  

Why do the physics laws exist? To create a coherent universe that sticks together instead of chaos?

Dear Sirs,

I thank you for interest. Could you specify the article title when E. Mach tells about physics as a tool to manage the nature processes with a specific aim? I would be appreciate if you advise some other physicist on my subject.

Einstein did not like quantum mechanics due to its random essence, probability theory usage. But already for a long time people use  MR imaging, different spectroscopies (giving discrete spectra) and it works, it helps people to survive. Therefore a few people now think about  very strange view of quantum mechanics laws or general relativity laws (with GPS in every car in a city). So if you admit that the physics is no more than a tool to manage the nature processes than you do not think about any strangeness in the physics law.

Dear Anatoly, you are welcome.

As for references, since I am not a student of philosophy / philosophy of science, my knowledge of Mach's works is essentially through secondary sources -- books and other publications written about him and his work (with the exception of Mach's book The Principles of Physical Optics (Dover, 1926) with which I am directly familiar). Therefore, at present I am not in the position to indicate where exactly Mach has made a specific statement with regard to a specific scientific subject matter. Nonetheless, for the discussion at hand it is relevant to appreciate that Mach was a positivist, breaking away from the philosophy of Kant and its metaphysics.

The two authorities on Mach with whose works I am somewhat familiar (through the well-known discussions regarding the reality of atoms and the work by Ludwig Boltzmann), are Stephen G. Brush and John Blackmore (it turns out that the popular view that Mach did not believe in the reality of atoms is far too simplistic -- Mach's views are more nuanced and more profound). You should be able to trace the relevant works by these authors on the internet. For now, I could point you to a review article by Erich Becher (The Philosophical Views of Ernst Mach, Phil. Rev. 14, 535 (1905)) -- link attached below, and the review of CR Weinberg's dissertation Mach's Empirio-Pragmatism in Physical Science, by Herbert Feigl (J. Phil. 35, 245 (1938)) -- link attached below.

As for "Einstein did not like quantum mechanics due to its random essence", I believe that we are long past these arguments, which are outdated. In this connection, you may wish to watch Professor Anton Zeilinger's Newton Lecture 2008 (Quantum Information and the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics), whose link I also attach below.

Lastly, I have never made any statement (here or elsewhere) with regard to the essence of the physical laws. What I have emphasised is that if strange at all, quantum mechanics is no more strange than classical mechanics, and vice versa. I neither deny nor confirm existence of a more profound form of knowledge than scientific knowledge as we know it.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2177489?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=jphil&id=jphil_1938_0035_0009_0245_0246

http://www.iop.org/resources/videos/lectures/page_42696.html

Dear Anatoly,

Interesting for you might be developments discussed in Frederick

Suppe ed., The structure of scientific theories: symposium, 1969,

Urbana, Ill.: outgrowth with a critical introduction and an

afterword by Frederick Suppe, University of Illinois Press, 1977,

criticizing logical positivism/empiricism, and discussing a

(pragmatic) structuralist methodology. The basic idea is that

physical theories cannot be derived from observation alone, and

that for this reason a Gordian knot must be cut in order to have a

start (like, for instance, Einstein did when starting from a

postulate of constancy of the velocity of light when developing his

Special relativity Theory).

You say: "It is known that the physics laws can not be precisely verified"

I don' think this is true at all.

The Coulomb inverse square law which is in action between the electric aspect of electromagnetic elementary particles such as the electron has been extensively verified with high precision, and has been known for hundreds of years.

The inverse cube magnetic interaction law which is in action between the magnetic aspect of the same electromagnetic elementary particles has been confirmed as recently as 2014 between 2 electrons.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1

Dear Mr. Andre Michaud,

I said about the impossibility to test each Newton`s law separately.

We can not check the 1st Newton`s law, we just suggest about the true inertial system.

We can not check that the 2nd Newton`s law F=ma is the LAW because we can NOT determine independently inertial mass m and force F. In fact this second law is frequently used as a determination for F or m.

The 3rd Newton`s law is not checked due the problem with the 2nd law above.

Dear Anatoly,

Ok, I see.

I found that it is possible to determine inertial mass m and force F by means of the independently measured invariant rest mass of the electron, which has been found to be exactly equal to 9.10938188E-31 kg by many mutually confirming experimental means.

Also, in many undergrad textbooks, such as "Physics" by Halliday and Resnick, the Coulomb force equation F=ke^2/r^2 is said to be equal to F=ma. They do not explain the derivation, but you will find an example of one such derivation in the paper attached.

Both equations give the exact same force F=8.238721806E-8 N

So you can have force F defined from the electrostatic Coulomb equation, which is also equal to F=ma, and separately mass m of the electron which has been defined separately and very precisely, by experimental means.

George Gamow, in his little book "Gravity" explains also how Newton derived F=GmM/r^2 and equated it to F=ma

I hope this helps.

Article Unifying All Classical Force Equations

In my understanding of actual physics we try to control nature - that's OK.

But first of all we try to understand the laws how nature generally works. In a second way  we try to use our knowledge for better management of our life. The aim of doing this is first of all our curiosity and secondly to use this knowledge in our practical life.  

Finally we can't compute all physical procedures, so we only can use their real results.

The responsibility of all Physicists for human society is to show also dangers for humanity. The scientists have to warn if dangers for any social groups are known to them. In Engineering of physical projects it's called "take liabilities" for our results. Therefor all engineering people have to take care on that - they are allowed to use nature laws only if they are reliable for the results too - otherwise they can be legally punished. 

One historical example for having this responsibility is the goal of Einstein to prevent Adolf Hitler to use the atomic technology. Therefor he got Member of "Manhattan Project". Of course he realised too late that throwing down first A-bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a wrong way too. 

Dear Mr. André Michaud,

I have stopped reading your article "Unifying all classical force equations" (you enclosed above) when you calculate some NEW gravitational constant G VALUE (which is fundamental constant!) for proton, see page 29???!!! This "G for proton" is not true!!! From encyclopedia I quote in SI units G=6,6720*10^(-11) N*m*kg^(-2).

Dear Anatoly

Yes, because the mass of the Sun, the length of the Earth orbit and time for 1 orbit are embedded into the standard value of G. This is good for astronomical systems such as the solar system, but absolutely inadequate if you try to use it for a system involving a central mass such as that of the proton in an atom with an orbiting mass such as that of the electron.

For G to be applicable to a hydrogen atom, one needs to coherently replace these values by the mass of the proton, the length of the rest orbital and the time for one orbit.

When we do this, this explains why F=ma can be coherently equated to F=ke^2/r^2 and F=GMm/r^2 as they do in undergrad text books.

Otherwise, it is impossible, even if they say so, that F=ma can be equated separately to F=ke^2/r^2 as they write, and at the same time F=ma can be equated also to F=GMm/r^2

If two equations can be equated to the same third equation, it is logically impossible that the first two equations would not be also equal to each other.

The only way to do it is to adap the value of G coherently to the orbiting system considered.

If you read the explanations, you will see what I mean. Just plain logic with complete mathematical support.

I understand that this is a new development, and difficult to accept that G is not as universal a constant as is generally assumed.

Dear Mr. André Michaud,

I explain my misunderstanding of your article in details. To calculate G for proton you equate the gravitational force (between proton and electron in hydrogen) to F=ma. Why? It is completely wrong!! The electron moves around proton in hydrogen due to coulomb electrostatic force and the coulomb force is centripetal force and it should be equate to F=ma. I do not understand your "new gravitational constant G for proton"!!

Another comment to the previous message. In the elementary particle world we should account for discrete values of physical quantities: energy, angular momentum, etc. I do not understand your article. I will look over the article in details later.

Dear Anatoly.

It is not me who equated F=ma to the gravitational equation F=GMm/r^2. It is Georges Gamow in this book "Gravity", Science Study Series, Doubleday, 1962, as he explains how Newton related F=ma to gravity, in his chapters 2, 3 and 4. Actually, it was Newton who equated F=ma to gravity.

Gamow is a Nobel prize winner for his work on relativity, so I assume he understands gravity.

If you do some research online, you certainly could find this book, because it still is being published. If you can find a copy, you will see his complete explanation.

What I did in my article is just mathematically proving the triple relation that is separately made by Gamow/Newton for F=ma=GMm/r^2, and made by Halliday and Resnick for F=ma=ke^2/r^2

This being so, this can only mean that F=ma=ke^2=GMm/r^2, because two equations being equal to a third can only be equal among each other.

The only way to do this is to adapt G to the proper scale.

But to summarize, if you read Gamow's book, this should help.

Dear Sirs,

I think the aim according to which we open physics laws may be a survival of humanity. The environment around us enforces us to invent new instruments, open new fundamental laws, prove new theorems etc. Maybe physics is in some sense related to natural selection? People uses a such physical theories which allow them to alive. A survival (reproduction) and natural selection mechanism cause human evolution.

What do you comment on these thoughts?