Why the fundamental laws of nature is the way it is?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the arbitrary nature of the fundamental laws of nature and questions why these specific laws exist. Scientists derive these laws through data collection and experimentation, leading to equations deemed fundamental. The conversation raises the intriguing point of why our universe has a consistent set of laws rather than a different or contradictory set. It suggests that while simpler laws might not support life, the complexity of our laws is necessary for the existence of self-reflective observers. Ultimately, the lack of a definitive answer highlights the mystery surrounding the principles that govern our universe.
PhysicsMonk
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
The world seems to me to be rather arbitrary. I don 't know if people feel the way I do.

Scientists apply for government grants to gather data, and conduct experiments. Some scientists look at the data, and write down equations. If those equations are sufficiently fundamental, then some people called them fundamental laws of nature. Later on, more people do experiments, look at equations, and attempt to write down a set of( or one) equations that is suppose to express even more fundamental deep regularities. The question I wonder about is "why?". Why these regularities? Why don 't we live say live in a universe with a completely different set of fundamental laws? I can 't imagine self-reflective observers can live in a universe with a logically contradictory set of laws, but why now a universe with a set of non-contradictory set of laws? The laws cannot be too simple, because there might not be any life. So, why don 't we live in a universe with a set of consistent laws, and complex enough set of laws that are able to produce self-reflective thinkers?
 
Space news on Phys.org
There is no answer to this. It's just the way it is.
 
You seem to answer your own question. A universe with different rules would be not only strange, but quite unstable.
 
My favorite answer is "because it follows from the principle underpinning the laws."
 

Thread 'Matter density right after the decoupling'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
View full post »

Thread 'Hubble Constant, Dark Energy and the Expanding Universe'

Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
View full post »

Similar threads

I Bootstrap model and different laws?
Replies
1
Views
2K
A What would it mean if symmetries in physics would not be fundamental?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Nature and The Universe, How can Nature being conscious, know what it is doing ?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Could MWI create universes with fundamentally different physical laws?
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
Scientific law vs. theory, Newton vs. Einstein
Replies
18
Views
4K
Questioning Hubble's Law: Does the Expanding Universe Theory Hold Up?
Replies
3
Views
2K
A "The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)
2
Replies
62
Views
9K
I Acceleration in Newton's second law
Replies
5
Views
2K
Radiation from charge ; nature of laws
Replies
1
Views
2K
How Do We Determine the Most Fundamental Laws of Nature?
Replies
22
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top