Talk:Physical law

message: The section "Description" is a nonneutral point of view. The rest of the article is not as bad, but still mostly carries a subtle bias in favor of the existence of universal, eternal, absolute laws. For example, even the sentence which suggests we might not know the ultimate physical laws still assumes the existence of physical laws in the sense put forth under "Description". Critical 02:01, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have responded to this on the logical fallacy talk page, as well as on the pages of the above mentioned users.  It does appear that these pages were as Hu suggests the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll.  But I wasn't the perpetrator.  This suggestion appears to have been an honest mistake, I consider the matter closed, and it appears that Hu does as well. CSTAR 01:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality about universal laws 

message: For the record, the user  Critical ( talk,  contributions), who slapped the "disputed NPoV" sticker on this page, has made his or her first edits tonight (or today) and within less than two hours has attacked eight articles for PoV, including (ironically given the CStar example given on the Logical fallacy talk page), Physical law.  These were the only "edits" (plus weak justifications on talk pages in the same vein as this one).  I don't think the PoV claim has merit.  We may ask if this series of attacks is to be taken seriously.
For the following reasons I am thinking that these pages has been the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll and the PoV sticker should be removed sooner rather than later, if not immediately.  We may note that  CStar ( talk,  contributions) after making edits, paused during the period user Critical made edits, and then CStar took up responding to these edits after the series of user Critical edits ends, as if there is only one user involved, and the user logged out, changed cookies and logged back in.  Further, user CStar left a note on  Charles Matthew's talk page,  Chalst's talk page, and   Angela's talk page pointing to a supposed PoV accusation placed on the Logical argument page, when in fact no such sticker has been placed.  Perhaps the irony regarding the Physical law page is not so ironic. Hu 05:18, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
::: I have responded to this on the logical fallacy talk page, as well as on the pages of the above mentioned users.  It does appear that these pages were as Hu suggests the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll.  But I wasn't the perpetrator.  This suggestion appears to have been an honest mistake, I consider the matter closed, and it appears that Hu does as well. CSTAR 01:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: About Users Critical and CStar

message: I wasn't aware of this page until the little incident alluded to by the above discussion brought it to my attention. Now that I'm here though I do have some remarks about the article (Yikes but I won't dare touch it)
* Doesn't the first paragraph mix two things which should be separate? (1) What is a physical law is and (2) how we obtain physical laws.
Now it is arguable that one can't meaningfully separate the two.  I don't think I believe that, but I'm certain willing to listen to an argument in favor of this.
* Do physical laws have to be generalizations? If so, how general do they have to be?  Generality does seem to be a desirable property of physical laws, but again I don't think this really gets  to the heart of the matter.  Some kid discovering the principle that toys fall when let go, has discovered a physical law.
* The properties of physical laws listed in the Description section, should have more clearly identified source attribution, that is some comment such as 
:* Universality (R. P. Feynman, The Feynman lectures on XYZ, 1971). 
:: Some of these I find hard to believe can be attributed to the sources mentioned.  For instance, the property of Omnipotence to Feynman? Maybe, but I find it hard to swallow that he would have said something like that.
CSTAR 17:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: References are now clearly distinguished.--Johnstone 14:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knowledge and epistemology 

message: What is a "movable type" law of nature? 
The distinction seems spurious, at least without further clarification and some reference.  Statistical laws can also be laws of nature; many well-known laws are.CSTAR 14:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movable type 

message: in the laws as approximation section, where would laws like say, the  Gas Laws fit into the various types mentioned? they are not precisely an approximation, because they are exact if applied to an ideal gas, the only snag being that in real life there aint no such thing, leaving one with the uneasy feeling that rather than the law being the approximation, it is the real stuff out there that is regarded as an approximation to the ideal.
* Indeed to add to this, we have "constants" in our Laws of Physics which cannot actually to be proven to be constants, since every time we measure them there remains uncertainty.  Mathematically we accept constants as being invariable, but the real world continues to surprise us.  --2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laws as Idealizations 

message: Tag added by —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClairSamoht (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 September 2006
Removed absurd veri policy tag. The article is referenced. What is the problem? Please specify your objections rather than slapping an absurd tag on the page - Communicate! Vsmith 00:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced 

message: What about the law of natural selection??--Filll 07:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about it?  This article is about physical laws, clearly distinguishing it from other-than-physical laws. Xihr 09:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, scientific law redirects here.--Filll 12:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all laws are physical laws 

message: They look like unsourced OR to me, and personal rants. Comments?--Filll 21:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubtful about recent edits 

message: The section about the character of laws of nature notes that laws are 'stable', yet the source used (Davies, 1992:83) worded this stronger: 'Eternal'.  I must say I prefer the word 'stable'.  However, 'stable' has a 'temporary' ring that 'eternal' does not have: Did laws become stable?  Can they become unstable?  etc.
My impression is that quite some scientists might go with the word 'eternal' yet quite some philosophers and physical cosmologists might go with the word 'stable'.  What do you think?
--Matti 09:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Stable' or 'Eternal' 

message: This article seems better now than the last time I read it.  The second paragraph attempts to define a difference in usage between "physical law" and "religious law," "civil law" and so on. This distinction is properly repeated elsewhere in the article.
What's missing is a critique on the appropriateness of the use of "law" at all.  Despite Feynman, et. al., "law" is a problem because it implies lawgiver. In 1965, this colloquialism had little moment.  Today, particularly in the U.S., its moment is greater.  In 1965, Richard Feynman could get away with derisiveness with respect to the analysis of "vilozoverz."  In the era of Antonin Scalia, that dismissiveness is dangerous.
I have trouble with the distinction made, under the heading "Description", between "physical law" and "theory", that "Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws" and so on.  This seems to be an arbitrary distinction.  Newton's "Laws" of Motion (to use an over-cited example) are no more "simple" than Maxwell's equations (in say, the form of the Heaviside Four), and we refer to this representation as a theory.  Similarly, the distinction between "that a thing happens" and "why and how a thing happens" isn't very compelling. I don't think that Quantum Electrodynamics explains at all "why" any of the behaviors it predicts happen.
This confusion results directly from trying to explain the use of a misleading, anachronistic "custom" of usage- a language game that was lost a long time ago and that now only invites comparison of an implied Lawgiver with Lawgiver(s) of revealed truth described in religious texts and traditions. No such comparison is warranted, but it entices.
The only thing we see in our observations are a great deal of phenomena that may be approximately described by more or less complex mathematical relations.  That is beautiful and powerful and useful enough.  The use of colloquial language like "Law" is both inadequate and misleading.Rt3368 18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupportable "Distinctions?" 

message: I notice there is a separate article Laws of science (?previously and more accurately called List of laws of science), about the particular physical laws that obtain in this universe (rather than what constitutes a physical law). It seems to be some of this article could be moved there, and perhaps that article or this one renamed, so as to distinguish between the two more clearly. I'd suggest that one article be purely about the actual laws, and the other (this one) purely about what constitutes a law (i.e. this article with improvements as discussed above). This article could be renamed 'Law of nature' (or perhaps 'Scientific law'), which is I believe is a more usual term in philosophy, and removes the potential confusion that the term 'Physical law' is not limited to laws of physics. Ben Finn 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlap with similarly-named article

message: Laws of nature are not just "true", as it used to say in the article.  For example Newton's law of gravity is only an approximation to Einstein's more exact general theory of relativity.  It works very well in a broad class of situations, but it is completely wrong in some.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.229.54 (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: True?

message: Scientific law was proposed for deletion on the following grounds by User:71.167.229.54: "In my opinion, this overlaps almost completely with Physical law, but is much more poorly written and not as complete. Perhaps the paragraph beginning 'The term "scientific law" is' could be salvaged and merged."
On that basis I'm suggesting it should be merged here before being considered for deletion. I think expert opinion is probably needed…  —SMALLJIM  15:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is still an generally useful, experimental Law of Dulong & Petit and a theoretical law of Stefan-Boltzman, older geologists used 'law' in the same manner as physical scientists (though they often used 'rule' as a synonym). However, having recently learned that the consensus of biologists reverse observation and theory in naming animals, I can't write of the use of 'law' by any other natural science. Geologist (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Given the results here and the age of this merger request, I propose removing the merger tag and closing this matter.  --Fcsuper (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  The consensus is obviously not there; I'm removing it. Xihr (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Scientific law 

message: There should be a section discussing the possibility of the law of physics being different elsewhere in the universe. JAF1970 (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a creditable source for this, sure; but, I don't think you'll find one.  Possibilities of General Relativity make it possible that time runs at different rates in different regions in relation to each other, and I think that's the closest factual statement you'll find to that effect. --Fcsuper (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since it's pure speculation, it would likely have WP:UNDUE problems.  Furthermore, much of our basis of understanding of the laws of physics is based on precisely the notion that they do not vary around the Universe, so it's questionable on its face. Xihr (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Physical laws elsewhere

message: This section contains unsupportable assertions. For example:
*Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.
That seems to rule out an algorithm, for example. 
It also contains "weasel words" like "apparently must comply", "Generally conservative", "appears to affect them", "appear to apply everywhere". (I guess if I look out the window and see no violation, the law appears to apply everywhere, for now., eh?)
These very vague terms are unacceptable in any article pretending to be authoritative, and not just a tabloid presentation. Read Nagel. Brews ohare (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsection "Description" 

message: I disagree with the idea that a law of nature can be just a definition.  A definition can't tell us anything about the world, the way a law is supposed to.  The following passage from Feynman is interesting in this regard.  There is more to it that you may want to read which I haven't typed here.  I propose that this article be changed accordingly.
This is from Chapter 12, section 1 (volume 1) of Feynman's Lectures on Physics.
Let us ask, "What is the meaning of the physical laws of newton, which we write as F=ma?  What is the meaning of force, mass, and acceleration?"  Well, we can intuitively sense the meaning of mass, and we can define acceleration if we know the meaning of position and time.  We shall not discuss those meanings, but shall concentrate on the new concept of force.  The answer is equally simple: "If a body is accelerating, then there is a force on it."  That is what Newton's laws say, so the most precise and beautiful definition of force imaginable might simply be to say that force is the mass of an object times the acceleration.  Suppose we have a law which says that the conservation of momentum is valid if the sum of all the external forces is zero; then the question arise, "What does it mean, that the sum of all the external forces is zero?"  A pleasant way to define that statement would be: "When the total momentum is a constant, then the sum of the external forces is zero."  There must be something wrong with that, because it is just not saying anything new.  If we have discovered a fundamental law, which asserts that the force is equal to the mass times the acceleration, and then define the force to be the mass times the acceleration, we have found out nothing.  We could also define force to mean that a moving object with no force acting on it continues to move with constant velocity in a straight line.  If we then observe an object not moving in a straight line with a constant velocity, we might say that there is a force on it. Now such things certainly cannot be the content of physics, because they are definitions going in a circle.  Thew Newtonian statement above, however, seems to be a most precise definition of force, and one that appeals to the mathematician; nevertheless, it is completely useless, because no prediction whatsoever can be made from a definition.  One might sit in an armchair all day long and define words at will, but to find out what happens when two balls push against each other, or when a weight is hung on a spring, is another matter altogether, because the way the bodies behave is something completely outside any choice of definitions."
From the same section:
"In the same way, we cannot just call F = ma a definition, deduce everything mathematically, and make mechanics a mathematical theory, when mechanics is a description of nature."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singularitarian (talk • contribs) 22:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Newton's 2nd law just a definition?  Feynman's take 

message: The entire section "Origin of laws of nature" seems questionable to me.  I don't believe that Newton's 2nd law, the principle of least action, Schroedinger's equation, the uncertainty principle, and causality are just definitions.  At the very least, this is a controversial claim and should not just be stated as a fact.  (See the passage from Feynman I quoted above, discussing Newton's 2nd law.)
This section then claims that most physical laws arise from certain symmetries of space, time, etc.  But who says that the universe obeys those symmetries?  There are physical laws that say the universe obeys certain symmetries.  And where did these laws come from?  We don't know.
The section claims that "the search for the most fundamental law(s) and most fundamental object(s) of nature is synonymous with the search for the most general mathematical symmetry group that can be applied to the fundamental interactions."  These things are not "synonymous".  Lots of physicists are not even taking this approach in their search for fundamental laws.
Then the section goes off topic:
The application of these laws to our needs has resulted in spectacular efficacy of science – its power to solve otherwise intractable problems, and made increasingly accurate predictions. This in turn resulted in design and implementation of variety of reliable transportation and communication means, in building more quality and affordable shelters, in creating variety of drugs, in finding new energy sources, in developing variety of entertainments, etc.
That passage has grammar flaws and is irrelevant to the topic of the "origin of laws of nature".
I propose that this whole section be either removed or completely rewritten.--Singularitarian (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of laws of nature section needs attention 

message: Hi,
Rather than emphasizing meta-conversations, what I wanted to find in under three clicks from a search engine is:
(a) a summary of the physical laws by name, containing no meta, 
(b) links to pages that state more info on each law - ie. what the law is, as a physics student doing review would want to read, not hypothetically what distinguishes physical laws from arbitrarily man-made laws as a person who never took a single science course would be interested in reading. 
(c) Mention of the mathematics and axioms that are relevant to the actual physical laws (not conversations about them), should have links to actual, specific mathematics and actual, specific axioms, rather than links to meta-conversations about what an axiom probably seems to be in layman's terms. 
Specific information is considerably more valuable than meta-content. For example, this page ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elementary_physics_formulae ~ is content-rich. A content-rich page on the Laws of Physics would be very well received. 
JenniferOverington (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of Physical Laws, landing page 

message: There's some disagreement on which is the better term. For the record, I believe that "religious" is the better term, because there's no ambiguity (Isaac Newton sure wasn't a Neopagan or a Sikh, for example), but it's not clear that Isaac Newton would have considered himself a traditional Christian. After all, The Trinity is a Christian doctrine that Newton explicitly rejected. I offered to let the other IP change it as a form of compromise, and I still believe that "Christian" is good enough, but "religious" is better by far. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "Christian" vs "religious"