There are no laws of physics theres only the landscape.

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of laws of physics and whether they truly exist or are just assumed theoretical concepts. The participants also touch on the idea that humans have a unique ability to understand and apply mathematical descriptions of the physical world. The conversation ends with a disagreement about the relevance of a previously read article.
  • #1
InebriatedScientist
21
1
In my post that I have been ranting on trying to figure out how to solve things on everyday occurrences. Which was titled "Mass of a Piston"

That is to say, can you use physics on the spot to calculate a golf swing that projects a ball off a cliff that you have never seen before. You don't know how high the cliff is or how much force was used to launch the ball. You also do not have a tech to help you "Mesure" things. Basically, you just observed this at random. So you can assume things, but that means you will not be precise. That is to say, it is easy to solve physics problems with data that is provided in the classroom setting. But in the real world, you would never know what is exactly happing, you would have to guess or assume. That leaves me to believe that there is no such thing as laws of physics but only assumed theoretical concepts to our best ability.

If this makes no sense to you, because I am terrible at communicating, I will make it simple. This is what I was really trying to make people understand. And that is "there are no laws of physics there is only landscape" I found this a good way to describe it. I did not write it, I just found a site after googling "Physics concepts are not real"

https://www.quantamagazine.org/there-are-no-laws-of-physics-theres-only-the-landscape-20180604/

After I read it, I thought to myself, "THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING"
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
lZDBWLo.jpg


Whatever you mean by "no laws", I guess they have been pretty useful up to now.
 

Attachments

  • lZDBWLo.jpg
    lZDBWLo.jpg
    66.8 KB · Views: 609
  • Like
Likes davenn, DennisN, nuuskur and 6 others
  • #3
InebriatedScientist said:
Basically, you just observed this at random. So you can assume things, but that means you will not be precise. That is to say, it is easy to solve physics problems with data that is provided in the classroom setting. But in the real world, you would never know what is exactly happing, you would have to guess or assume. That leaves me to believe that there is no such thing as laws of physics but only assumed theoretical concepts to our best ability.
All animals - humans and others - learn how to do physical things, by repetition. Whether it is something as basic as walking or more complicated like throwing a ball into a hoop, through repetition you learn how you and objects around you behave in the physical world and develop an instinct for making making physical motions work.

That doesn't mean that physical laws don't exist, it just means we learn them instinctively.

Humans, however, are alone in the animal kingdom in having worked-out the actual math of how those physical motions work. So when you throw a ball off a cliff, you may have an instinct for what is going to happen, but you could also measure the start of the trajectory and predict where it would land with math -- if you chose to.

(This post should have been too obvious to be necessary.)
 
  • Like
Likes davenn and BillTre
  • #4
InebriatedScientist said:
If this makes no sense to you, because I am terrible at communicating, I will make it simple. This is what I was really trying to make people understand. And that is "there are no laws of physics there is only landscape" I found this a good way to describe it. I did not write it, I just found a site after googling "Physics concepts are not real"

My take from that article was that there are potentially many different mathematical descriptions of the universe and the laws by which it operates, all of which are equivalent to each other. That's why it's a landscape. It's a landscape composed of different descriptions. I can't reconcile this with your statement that there are no laws of physics.
 
  • #5
InebriatedScientist said:
If this makes no sense to you, because I am terrible at communicating, I will make it simple. This is what I was really trying to make people understand. And that is "there are no laws of physics there is only landscape" I found this a good way to describe it. I did not write it, I just found a site after googling "Physics concepts are not real"
They are real enough that now you can have a computer (based on physics). Based on experience alone, you would stuck somewhere at the level of an abacus.

Based on experience, all things will stop moving eventually. But if somebody start asking further, then it will lead to discoveries about Newtonian laws and drag (almost the complete classical physics, with all the applications). Then which is more real, the limited experience or the physics?
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42
  • #6
InebriatedScientist said:
After I read it, I thought to myself, "THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING"
After I read it I thought “That had nothing whatsoever to do with what you were previously saying”

Do not restart closed threads. Thread closed again.
 

What does the statement "There are no laws of physics, there's only the landscape" mean?

The statement means that the physical world and its behavior are not governed by strict laws, but rather by the constantly changing and diverse natural landscape.

How does this statement contradict traditional scientific beliefs?

This statement contradicts traditional scientific beliefs because it suggests that the laws of physics, which have been used to explain and predict natural phenomena, may not be as absolute or universal as previously thought.

What evidence supports this statement?

There is evidence from quantum mechanics and chaos theory that suggests that the behavior of the natural world is not always predictable or consistent, and that it is influenced by the complex and ever-changing landscape of the universe.

Does this mean that scientific laws and theories are irrelevant?

No, this statement does not render scientific laws and theories irrelevant. They still serve as useful tools for understanding and explaining the natural world, but they may not be as all-encompassing as previously believed.

How does this statement impact the future of scientific research?

This statement challenges scientists to continue exploring and questioning the laws of physics and to potentially discover new ways to understand and explain the natural world beyond traditional laws and theories.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
655
Replies
17
Views
777
Replies
4
Views
980
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
775
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top