1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B How do we know our laws of physics are correct?

  1. Aug 2, 2018 #1
    I was just curious to know, how do we know our laws of physics are correct? How do we know the laws about time or space aren't overruled (we say time flows forward, but how do we know that it cant skip back or flow backwards), because we just haven't seen it or can't perceive it?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 2, 2018 #2

    Bandersnatch

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    They make sufficiently accurate predictions to treat them as provisionally correct.
     
  4. Aug 2, 2018 #3

    phyzguy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Define "correct". We know our laws of physics are an accurate description of the universe because we have done a huge number of measurements and observations to validate them. Does your computer work? It was designed with our known laws of physics and wouldn't work if our physics models weren't reasonably accurate. How about your GPS tracker? Same comment. Do the space probes we launch toward the toward the planets actually arrive there? They wouldn't if our models were even slightly off. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
     
  5. Aug 2, 2018 #4
    Well, by correct I mean, are they universally correct, and have they always been correct. Like can a law, let's pick a random one, the second law of thermodynamics, be overrules or proven wrong, yet we just haven't seen it been proven wrong yet. Apply this to bigger things like time itself, physicists say there is a flow to time, it always flows forward, how do we know that it can't flow backwards, or hell, skip forward or skip backwards, but we just haven't seen it yet?
     
  6. Aug 2, 2018 #5

    phyzguy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I would say we know that none of our laws of physics are "universally correct", if by this you mean that they apply exactly in every circumstance. All of our laws of physics have domains in which they are accurate to some verified level of accuracy, and domains in which they fail.
     
  7. Aug 2, 2018 #6

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    We do experiments. If the result matches the prediction of the law then the law is correct in the experimentally tested domain.
     
  8. Aug 2, 2018 #7
    When you say 'domains in where they fail' are you referring to extreme domains, like inside a black hole and stuff? But really what I meant was, how do we know laws that we assume are correct in a domain are just incorrect? Like how can we be sure time always flows forward? (I use time as it is an easy example and we experience it every day).
     
  9. Aug 2, 2018 #8

    phyzguy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I'm not sure what you are asking. I've never experienced time flowing backwards, and I don't think you or anyone else has either. If you are asking, "How do we know that are laws of physics that are valid today will still be valid in the future?", the answer is that we don't. It is a basic postulate of physics that the same laws of physics that we experience here on Earth at this time are valid throughout the universe and for all times. This postulate has been extraordinarily successful at describing what we see.
     
  10. Aug 2, 2018 #9
    Yeah, that's what I meant, will the laws we see as correct today, be correct in the future? Like, Newtonian physics was proven wrong by Einstein. So, how do we know the same won't happen to our laws now?
     
  11. Aug 2, 2018 #10

    phyzguy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Newtonian physics was not "proven wrong". It is an excellent model of our universe within its domain of applicability and is used to great effect by millions of people every day. You should read the following insights article:

    https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/classical-physics-is-wrong-fallacy/

    Our current laws of physics will almost certainly be improved upon in the future. We certainly expect (and hope!) that there will be better models in the future with greater accuracy and larger regimes of applicability.
     
  12. Aug 2, 2018 #11
    So basically, our laws of physics which we observe to be correct can't be wrong, just proved upon in the future. Its not like the second law of thermodynamics can suddenly be proven wrong in the future, but it could be improved from what it is. Would I be correct?
     
  13. Aug 2, 2018 #12

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    All of the evidence indicates yes.
     
  14. Aug 2, 2018 #13

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    How do we know reindeer can't fly?
     
  15. Aug 3, 2018 #14
    So we can safely say all our current laws are correct?
     
  16. Aug 3, 2018 #15

    jbriggs444

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What kind of confidence are you looking for? We bet our lives every day on things that we know with a good deal less reliability. How do you know that the brakes in your car still work today?

    Our laws of physics are well tested within the regimes available for experimentation. That is as good as it gets.
     
  17. Aug 3, 2018 #16

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    Newtonian physics was not proven wrong by Einstein. Newtonian physics is part of relativity, specifically the v<<c part. So relativity can not prove it wrong.

    All of the centuries of experimental evidence supporting Newtonian physics still holds in the respective domains of the experiments. That is why Newtonian physics is still taught in school. Newtonian physics is right, in the Newtonian domain.

    Yes, they are all correct in the domain where they have been experimentally validated.

    At this point your question has been answered repeatedly.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2018
  18. Aug 3, 2018 #17
    If you cannot see the sun due to cloud, does it prove that its not there?

    There is nothing like absolute truth.

    You may say that if a car on ground in earth accelerates in forward direction, it will go back. You may develop the math as well. Stretch the fact to n dimensions or something. But in this space/domain will any car follow such law? At least in any space we know?

    Any other observer will see that the car will always go forward. Hence your equation does not match with experiment thus incorrect.

    This establishes that physics is RELATIVE, physical laws are developed for THIS DIMENSION only(we cannot develop physical equations without knowing data from other simension) EXPERIMENTS/OBSERVATIONS MUST MATCH EQUATIONS developed for a particular dimension.
    Together with all DATA we prove that the laws are Correct.

    Try this, if a is a natural number then a>0. Prove there exists an a<0.No one knowns the complete N set. There can be!

    If you can't generate any counter example then it is implied that if a is in N then it is always greater 0.

    Same for Physics, generate enough data/evidence to show that physical equations are incorrect,if you cannot then it is implied that laws are correct and you are wrong.
     
  19. Aug 3, 2018 #18

    sophiecentaur

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    You are just re-stating your OP, slightly differently. Is there any reason, other than 'mischief' that is keeping you on this course? You are using the word "correct" in an imprecise way and there is no answer until you say exactly what you mean by it. In the terms of "Science", the laws are 'correct'. In your terms (as yet unspecified) they could be 'incorrect'. But what does that say about your terms?
    If you have a problem with the scientific attitude then that is a separate issue. Many people feel excluded from the club of Science because they find the ultra careful and formal way the Laws are stated is too hard to follow. That's a personal problem for them and not a problem for 'Science'.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2018
  20. Aug 3, 2018 #19
    Sorry, I meant correct as in, are they just correct for now, for what we know, and will they be proven incorrect in future when we get more knowledge, like how Newtonian physics, I thought was incorrect, but I was proven wrong, it was just improved upon.
     
  21. Aug 3, 2018 #20
    Laws/Theorems must be precise, concise, independent of what is being defined and formal.

    Science always has been and always will be a dense network of closely related ideas made simple through laws and equations.
    This is the most simplification we can achieve and we should.

    You cannot spell CAT without knowing what is C, A, T and how to make meaningful words with it.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted