“How vain and selfish can you be if you think you know the laws of the universe and how the universe works? There is no police of the universe, no planetary police. The universe is not a citizen who follows certain laws. It has no laws. The laws of physics are made by man. And science is subjective because people are subject and subjective. There is no objective reality for the subjects. Objectivity is for objects, not for subjects,” the “science enthusiasts” of scientific subreddits would claim. If you`ve come to the end of this blog post, you`ve really proven that you`re a physics lover, and I`d love to hear from you in the comments section! You will be pleased to know that I hope to invite many of these researchers to present their ideas in a print magazine in the years to come. Roberts reviewed some of the leading philosophical schools of thought, found them imperfect, and argued that the concept of law is inextricably linked to how physicists discover laws. Their main tool is a controlled experiment that naturally looks for models independent of specific conditions. I confess that I have not understood how Roberts` approach helps to answer the questions that are most dear to us: why is nature shaped rather than chaotic? Why does a law obtained from a situation (e.g., falling apples) work in unrelated situations (orbiting planets)? But it seems useful to recognize that our laws, even if they capture an objective reality, are conditioned by our process of discovery. It`s a fascinating result, experts say.

“Brazilian researchers have developed a mathematical framework and corresponding experimental configuration that allows quantum theory to be tested, particularly understanding the nature of complementarity by studying the physical realism of the system,” Stephen Holler, associate professor of physics at Fordham University, told Popular Mechanics. Now, a kind of scientific realism would say that as soon as you accept an idea of the idea that a law of science can be evaluated in terms of truthfulness or lies, then you have become a scientific realist. There are many different ways to think about what it means to be true. For example, there is the idea that a claim must somehow “match” the state it describes. If we think about it this way, we could say that the laws of classical physics are somehow, though imperfect, consistent with the aspects of the universe that we want to reliably describe. They are more representative than, say, a statement about the universe that involves the divine order of the celestial spheres, but less representative than the more modern formulations of physics that followed them to explain the increasingly diverse phenomena we have observed. However, this is not the only way to conceptualize the truth. In any case, once a person agrees with the idea that some of these images are better than others (i.e., they can be evaluated in terms of truth or lies), and moreover, that these images seem to rely on each other conceptually and in the data they bring to the phenomena they purport to describe (i.e., their relevance is not accidental) – then they are on board with a realistic view of science. On the other hand, “seeing red makes people blink more often” is basically a scientific theory because you can show them something red to anyone who is able to see the colors and measure how often they flash.

It should be clarified, for example, what exactly you mean by “see”, “red” and “more often”, but essentially, this theory is “objectively” verifiable. I answered your question about the laws of another submarine, but I will ask it here anyway. I think it contains an answer to some of your other questions, but not all of them, because they are incredibly broad: the need for interpretation undermines the sense of absolute objectivity of the scientific theories with which they are often presented, but usually causes few difficulties in practice. However, there is a bigger and more subtle problem: language. Imagine if the poor creature in my article on natural numbers was just a construct of our mind unable to perceive discrete objects. It would be impossible for you to explain a mathematical theory about this because our mathematics is based on discrete objects (natural numbers and symbols). In these interpretations, there is a universal wave function that exists objectively, if not observableally. Dieguez is delighted. “The fact that a material particle can behave like a wave and light like a particle, depending on the context, remains one of the most fascinating and beautiful mysteries in quantum physics,” he says.

But this does not make the laws of physics subjective. They are objective in the sense that anyone who has access to the same controls (i.e. experimental devices) will get the results predicted by the laws of physics. So, as a final answer, I would say this: Regardless of whether or not our theories inform us about the “final” laws (if they exist at all), it seems that the best theories we have correctly explain and describe some of the causal, nomological, and modal relationships that underlie the phenomena we study. Philosopher Chris Smeenk of the University of Western Ontario has studied how to formulate a law of the entire universe. A law usually applies to several situations such as reproducible experiences, but there is only one universe. But he argued that a single universe still has several levels of approximation. Physicists regularly start with an approximate guess about planetary orbits or particle behavior and gradually refine them. Each of these stages of refinement, Smeenk suggested, is a self-contained situation that allows you to test the laws. Watch the video here. Wigner`s original thought experiment is fundamentally simple.

It starts with a single polarized photon that, when measured, can have horizontal polarization or vertical polarization. But before measurement, the photon exists according to the laws of quantum mechanics in both polarization states simultaneously – a so-called superposition. Are there the laws of physics and do they describe how the universe works? Why are they incomplete and why do they contradict each other when they exist? The two realities are therefore in contradiction with each other. “This calls into question the objective facts of both observers,” argue Proietti and Co. There`s this social stigma that when something goes wrong at some point, it can never be right. But science, as we know, never works that way. It is constantly evolving and will constantly evolve. And the greatest theories we know will not be wrong in the future, but will only be inserted into the larger picture of reality. Just as Newtonian physics was to be part of the theory of relativity.

One thing about physics is both disturbing and exciting is the number of seemingly simple questions that remain unanswered. When you hear the questions physicists struggle with, you sometimes think: Wait, you mean they don`t even know? Physics could be defined as the subject who tries to understand why the world may seem incomprehensibly complex at first, but on closer inspection, it is determined by simple laws. These laws, which are repeatedly applied, create complexity. From this definition, one might assume that physicists have at least clarified what they mean by “law.” Let`s take the classical laws of physics and think about what it might mean to say they are “real” or “not real.” As you note, classical physics has proven incapable of properly describing all the strange things in the universe that we have been able to observe.