Do physicists break the laws of physics?
If physicists are bound by (and therefore obey) the laws of physics, then physics is being studied by something that is its own property... therefore there is no real study of physics... the study of physics is simply an cycle of endless cycle of narcissism between physics and physicists (which are in fact the same thing), through which physics and physicists both end up dead.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
I wasn't aware that non-physicists aren't bound by the laws of physics.
>Que Alan Watts quotes
>Do physicists break the laws of physics?
A massless particle can have momentum according to physicists.
"So the bodhisattva saves all beings, not by preaching sermons to them, but by showing them that they are delivered, they are liberated, by the act of not being able to stop changing."
In the case of finding an exemption to previously believed rules of reality, the "laws of physics" can be broken. But reality doesn't depend on what we think of it.
It doesn't really come up much these days, a model might have unknown bits or unforseen complications but we rarely come out completely wrong on anything.
All particals in motion do not have mass. It is merely considered energy.
However if you look close enough...
you can find that this is B.S. The only reason they said that is because they consider their findings at this point "finished" and the global black operations are turning to another means to achieve..."relevant results" In fields such as nano tech, resonance tech and.... look....what is coming is essentially portals m8. Sci fi shit we have not even dreamed of.
>a model might have unknown bits or unforseen complications but we rarely come out completely wrong on anything.
>unknown bits or unforseen complications but we rarely come out completely
>unforseen complications
unforseen consequences more like, amirite?
>you can find that this is B.S.
Yes, someone indeed got a Bachelor of Science title with that.
And thus OP realised that we can only learn thing we already knew.
And it was a good day for OP
> the "laws of physics" can be broken.
give me an example in real life
Meme drive
Singularities.
Any energy over 1×10^15 eV.
Anything under the planck scale.
At least, those are examples where our laws of physics and ability to mathematically speak of them break down. Shit keeps right on working, just not under our known laws, and not in anyway we can currently meaningfully speak of.
So biologists who are subject to biology cannot really study biology?
The understanding of physics is far from complete, but everything so far suggests that the universe does work under a set of logical rules, we've just yet to fully discover and interpret them all.
So when we say something violates the laws of physics, we mean as it pertains to the laws that as they are currently understood - not that we actually make those laws.
Also anywhere profound advancement in understanding takes place such as between newtonian physics and relativity, but that's usually buffered by changes in theory rather than sudden surprising experiments.
How do such large scale charge formations appear in the atmosphere that we have miles long lightning bolts? I'm not categorically saying it breaks the laws of physics but those laws seem to say that as soon as a small scale charge formation appeared, it would immediately neutralize due to the electric force. All the matter in the atmosphere starts out neutral so as soon as two charges separate, they will be close to together and should immediately attract to each other, but instead they separate to create large scale charge formations in the atmosphere. It doesn't make any sense to say, "Maybe the negative charge starts out way over there and the positive way over the other way, and that's why the charge formations are large scale." This is a big mystery to me.
I'm... Sure someone could answer that question for you, probably someone on this board.
Unlike this one:
en.wikipedia.org
But when we say something "defies the laws of physics", it's a bit of a misnomer, as the laws of physics are not entirely understood. There's a lotta little things, in some cases commonly experienced and extremely fundamental things, that we just don't know.
When our understanding of physics can't explain something that we can clearly observe, it's kind of the equivalent of saying, "It shouldn't be, but it do."
We nonetheless assume there is some logical explanation behind it, some law, as we've found that to be true of so many things thus far, and have accomplished so much with the systems we have uncovered (and in turn rely on them for so much).
>it's a bit of a misnomer, as the laws of physics are not entirely understood.
yes
what the fuck is that
If I understood OP correctly, this is a debate about free will. If physicists themselves are deterministic physical machines, then the act of doing research is predetermined. Thus they are not actually freely researching nature but merely obeying its laws. It would then be impossible to gain any knowledge other than that which you are predetermined to gain.
Allow me to break your mind like a manifold fractal.
P = NP
>It would then be impossible to gain any knowledge other than that which you are predetermined to gain.
Assuming determinism, that would be true of any knowledge, so why bring up physics?
Though, really - I have no idea what OP was trying to say.
>as soon as a small scale charge formation appeared, it would immediately neutralize due to the electric force.
This may seem to be true, but it is not. The earth has a virtually unlimited amount of free electrons. As the cloud moves across the earths surface, the friction between the two has enough energy to excite earth's electrons. Some of those excited electrons make their way to the cloud, which is full of locally polar molecules. So the electron clings to the water molecules in the cloud, until there's a big enough charge density to cause a discharge.
>then physics is being studied by something that is its own property... therefore there is no real study of physics...
I don't follow. Could you describe the logic behind this conclusion?
>Do physicists break the laws of physics?
Just like politicians, they just rewrite the laws to suit their needs.
Isn't science largely a social construct? It's less about objectively understanding the world but more about how we currently WANT to see the world. In the dark ages we wanted to prove the earth is flat. In modern times we want to prove that gender is a spectrum. Those are socially given views and science is merely used to interpret the facts in such a manner that they fit into the narrative.
Well, yes, and since we are predetermined to study forever, our knowledge will asymptotically approach omniscience.
The anatomy of atmospheric electrical discharge. The bits up top we don't see much of.
Science is a tool.
You can use it to advocate for particular social constructs, and those who wish to advocate against those same social constructs can use it as well.
When someone uses a screwdriver to remove your door against your will, you don't blame the screwdriver.