Why are the laws of physics what they are?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nature of universal constants in physics, such as the speed of light, Planck's length, and the gravitational constant. Participants explore whether these constants are arbitrary, a result of chance, or if there is a deeper reason behind their specific values. The conversation touches on theoretical, philosophical, and speculative aspects of physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Philosophical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express that the values of universal constants seem arbitrary and question whether there is a reason for their specific values or if it is merely coincidence.
  • One participant suggests that the smallness of the gravitational constant allows for life as we know it, but acknowledges that this reasoning may not be entirely satisfying.
  • Another participant proposes a view of "god" as the structure and behavior of the universe, rather than a sentient being, suggesting that this perspective aligns with scientific understanding.
  • There are references to the difficulty of understanding why certain symmetries, such as local U(1) gauge symmetry, exist in physics, indicating a layer of complexity in the discussion.
  • Some participants mention the significance of dimensionless ratios between constants, such as the fine structure constant, as a more interesting aspect of the discussion.
  • A few posts touch on the philosophical implications of discussing the existence of God in relation to scientific inquiry, with varying opinions on the appropriateness of such discussions in a physics context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion features multiple competing views and remains unresolved regarding the reasons behind the values of universal constants. Participants express differing opinions on the intersection of science and belief in God, leading to a mix of philosophical and scientific perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the limitations of scientific inquiry in addressing questions about the existence of God, emphasizing the reliance on empirical data and the scientific method. There is also a recognition that discussions may veer into philosophical territory, which could affect the thread's focus.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring the philosophical implications of physics, the nature of universal constants, and the intersection of science and belief systems.

ScientificMind
Messages
48
Reaction score
1
In physics, at least at my level of knowledge and understanding, a lot of the most basic facts of reality start to seem a bit arbitrary. Mostly this seems to be the case with the various universal constants such as the speed of light or plank's length or the gravitational constant. So what I would like to know is if there is some reason why those constants are what they are or is it all just coincidence or chance, or is that maybe something that is impossible to ever know?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The truth is we have no answers to your questions. These are things we hope to know someday.

The reality of physics is that try to understand the workings of the universe using theories we construct using mathematical concepts.

We tune the models using experiments to measure key constants and then we begin to apply the theories to make predictions that we can test experimentally.

The mystery is why does the math work so well across so many fields of physics. This mystery gives us hope that we will find a single theory that describes the universe.

Having said that we can see how difficult our journey to a single theory will be as seek to understand the deep meaning of quantum mechanics. A theory which defies our common sense and yet works so well in the subatomic realm.

Nova did a show called The Great Math Mystery on this very subject.

https://www.pbs.org/video/nova-great-math-mystery/
 
jedishrfu said:
The truth is we have no answers to your questions.
Darn, that's too bad. Still, I figured that there was a decent possibility of that being the case going in. Still, even if there are no concrete answers, do you know if there are any common of popular hypotheses going around the scientific community on the subject? In any case, thanks for the answer, and I'll be sure to check out that video!
 
Well, I can find some reasons as to why for example the gravitational constant is so small, because if it was much bigger then the miracle of life in planet Earth wouldn't be possible, at least not for organisms of medium or large size, because they would collapse under their own weight...

But I guess this reasoning might not be so satisfying (so what if there would be no medium to large organisms?), I believe however that there is God and God made the universe and the laws of the universe and gave specific values to the constants of the universe . Trying to answer your question is kind of like trying to enter the mind of God.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: paul15
Delta² said:
Well, I can find some reasons as to why for example the gravitational constant is so small, because if it was much bigger then the miracle of life in planet Earth wouldn't be possible, at least not for organisms of medium or large size, because they would collapse under their own weight...

But I guess this reasoning might not be so satisfying (so what if there would be no medium to large organisms?), I believe however that there is God and God made the universe and the laws of the universe and gave specific values to the constants of the universe . Trying to answer your question is kind of like trying to enter the mind of God.

That answer got me thinking. I wonder if there are advanced physics courses in heaven? It would give you something to do to pass the time.
 
PeroK said:
That answer got me thinking. I wonder if there are advanced physics courses in heaven? It would give you something to do to pass the time.

Once you pass the gates to heaven you instantaneously gain all knowledge about the laws of physics ….

But ok seriously I know God's existence cannot be supported by data gathered and analysed according to the principles of the scientific method.(for example scientists did experiments, data measurements and data analysing and concluded that quarks exist, we can't conclude God's existence in the same way). All we have are some written documents of the past (bible and others) that I know are of little to no scientific value. Still I believe in God. I absolutely respect your right to be an atheist.

And ok I know that if we refer to God, we put the thread in danger to be locked, don't lock the thread , instead just remove or edit my posts if you find my posts non scientific.
 
Last edited:
Another way of looking at it is to redefine what "god" really means. I'm a scientist, and I consider myself an atheist when it comes to any of the religious definitions of god. Show me your proofs, right?

However, if you define "god" as "the structure and behaviour of the entire universe, including what we call physics, that we are all a part of" then that makes logical sense to me.

All available evidence points to us (as individual people) simply being temporary amalgamations of energy/mass and connected to everyone/everything else. That alone is a concept worthy of awe and belief, one that can guide how you behave in this world.

"god" in this sense is not a sentient being analagous to us but bigger, any more than one of our own cells is like us.
 
You might enjoy The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. I'm about half way through. Just got to the bit where they explain how experiment (appear) to show how we can influence the past.
 
Q: Why are Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism the way they are?

A: Because of local U(1) gauge symmetry.

Q: OK, then why is there local U(1) gauge symmetry?

A: Uh...

You can do the same thing for anything in physics, except that you might need one or two more levels of Q&A.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
  • #10
jtbell said:
Q: Why are Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism the way they are?

A: Because of local U(1) gauge symmetry.

Q: OK, then why is there local U(1) gauge symmetry?

A: Uh...

You can do the same thing for anything in physics, except that you might need one or two more levels of Q&A.

I'd like to see God's response to that!
 
  • #11
ScientificMind said:
or is that maybe something that is impossible to ever know?
That is impossible to say. At least I think so. :biggrin:
ScientificMind said:
So what I would like to know is if there is some reason why those constants are what they are or is it all just coincidence or chance, or is that maybe something that is impossible to ever know?
Yes. There is a reason, it is because we use base 10 for our numbers. :smile:
Seriously, what's more interesting are the dimensionless ratios between various constants like e.g. the fine structure constant α and the proton to electron mass ratio.

See e.g. this article on fundamental constants: How Many Fundamental Constants Are There?
and this thread for some discussion on these matters: Why is the fine structure constant what it is?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
  • #12
Delta² said:
Once you pass the gates to heaven you instantaneously gain all knowledge about the laws of physics ….

But ok seriously I know God's existence cannot be supported by data gathered and analysed according to the principles of the scientific method.(for example scientists did experiments, data measurements and data analysing and concluded that quarks exist, we can't conclude God's existence in the same way). All we have are some written documents of the past (bible and others) that I know are of little to no scientific value. Still I believe in God. I absolutely respect your right to be an atheist.

And ok I know that if we refer to God, we put the thread in danger to be locked, don't lock the thread , instead just remove or edit my posts if you find my posts non scientific.

I don't think the comment should be removed as there are comparisons with god and string theory.

Both are neat theories that explain the universe but come in countless versions with no hard data to verify them.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
  • #13
Before we veer into more philosophical or religious topics, I think its time to close this thread.

I'd also recommend a great book by the creators of PhD Comics:

We Have No Idea by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0735211523/?tag=pfamazon01-20

It has some discussion on these and other questions of interest.

Jedi
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Topic about physics axioms, theory, laws etc..
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
5K
Undergrad Changing or breaking the most fundamental laws and symmetries?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Undergrad Are there other renowned physicists who believe in evolving laws of physics?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Nested universes across scales - existing literature?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Graduate "The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
Graduate What would it mean if symmetries in physics would not be fundamental?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Dimensional analysis peculiarity
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Three questions regarding QG theories
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Graduate Why does the principle of stationary action work?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Could the Laws of Physics Be Proportional to Entropy?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
817