# Universality of the laws of physics

How is it known at any point in the space of this universe that there is no particle in which its gravitational force does not follow Newton's law or other current laws?

How does the same matter apply to other fundamental forces, does not apply to that particle?

How do we know the number of particles that do not follow our defined rules in the world are more than the number of particles that follow these rules?

• This question exactly is why scientists still call things "theories" long after most people would regard them as "facts". Newton's "Theory of Gravitation" was replaced by Einstein's "Theory of General Relativity". We don't call them theories because we have evidence that they're not true sometimes, but rather because we don't have evidence that they're true all the time. In the case of Newton's theories, we found evidence they weren't true and replaced them. – bendl Oct 3 '17 at 15:44
• "I claim that there may be a particle on Earth that does not follow the fundamental rules of physics in the forces." Physical theories are judged by how well their predictable results match the observations. What are your testable predictions. If such a particle does exist, then what? What difference would it make for anyone in any field? If you can formulate your predictions and they test positively, then you'd have a successful theory. – safesphere Nov 21 '17 at 5:36

The only answer to all your questions is that not only we do not know but we cannot know, which make your question a philosophical one. It is not possible to observe or experiment on every phenomena everywhere in the universe. The best you can ask of science is to try as hard as humanly possible to falsify current theories.

And we try hard. For example, every distant source of light, be it star or galaxy is systematically subjected to a spectral analysis, and so far we have always observed the same absorption and emission lines we discovered through experiments on Earth. We are therefore pretty confident we got our atomic physics right throughout the universe. But then, considering the tone of your question, we have to admit that we haven't observed every star or every galaxy (one of the latest deep field study found 10 times more galaxies than expected for example), with the added complexity that we actually look at various distance into the past in a way, and therefore that those complying galaxies could have deviated from the laws of physics we know by now. This illustrates how it is futile to practice science under the point of view of your question: I could keep lining up the facts showing we nailed down the laws of physics for large swath of the universe, relative abundance of light elements and the frequency spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation being two of the most remarkable ones, but you could always point out a place we overlooked.

Essentially, your question is a classic argument of the gaps.

• I'd venture that, since the invention of the telescope, we do know... – Oscar Bravo Oct 3 '17 at 8:33
• @Oscar No, we don't "know". But equally, we have no evidence to suggest we are wrong. There's always tomorrow's experiment or observation - just don't hold your breath. – hdhondt Oct 3 '17 at 9:46
• Not quite ready to downvote this but it seems to me that if parts of the universe behaved differently from others, wouldn't we be very likely to observe that difference sooner or later? Perhaps your point is that for smaller differences, "later" tends to "never". – Todd Wilcox Oct 3 '17 at 12:49
• @ToddWilcox Your confidence in science is heart-warming but as I pointed out, every time we roll out a new generation of telescope, we discover way more than we thought was there: I don't feel confident to categorically state that one day we will have mapped all the galaxies in the visible universe. And I am not even addressing the adjective "visible" here as the OP's line of reasoning can quickly fall into the non-falsifiable. – user154997 Oct 3 '17 at 12:59
• @ToddWilcox The best arguments are perhaps those I did not develop: for our inflationary big bang model to get the CMBR spectrum, and the galaxy density spectrum, and the relative abundances of light elements so right means that model gets a lot of physics right at small and large scales, all across the universe. – user154997 Oct 3 '17 at 13:01

How is it known at any point in the space of this universe that there is no particle in which its gravitational force does not follow Newton's law or other current laws?

Newton's law is not a current law. It is known to be false.

We found out it was false by noticing problems with it: it clashes with the special theory of relativity. Einstein guessed a replacement. Physicists tested the guess by making measurements in situations where Einstein's theory and Newton's theory made different predictions. Newton's laws were refuted. All of our knowledge of physics, and of everything else, was invented by guessing and criticising guesses.

How do we know the number of particles that do not follow our defined rules in the world are more than the number of particles that follow these rules?

A law of physics is an explanation (an account of how the world works) that restricts the behaviour of physical systems. A law of motion constrains systems to evolve in a particular way. The second law of thermodynamics forbids some processes that decrease entropy. Either that explanation is correct or it is not. There is nothing in between. Either every particle follows a given law, or none of them follow it. You can't make exceptions to a law without entirely ruining the explanation it gives.

For example, if I were to say that general relativity except on Tuesday 3 October in the period from 9am to 9.30am in the United Kingdom: gravity would turn off and everyone would float away. that would raise lots of problems for general relativity. Those problems wouldn't be confined to questions about what happens in the UK. Those problems have no answers unless we had an alternative explanation. There would be questions about what reference frame the time should be measured in that would have consequences elsewhere, e.g. - consequences for the gravitational field in other places.

See "The Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch, chapters 3 and 7, for more explanation of these issues.

• It's a bit harsh to say Newton's Theory of Gravitation is false. It is incomplete in the limit of relativistic speeds or black-hole scale gravitational fields, but it is extremely accurate for planetary dynamics. Your comment about there is nothing in between is just nonsense - science is constructed using layers of models; simple models that describe the broad behaviour of a system, then increasingly more precise models that deal with particular cases. – Oscar Bravo Oct 3 '17 at 8:31
• How do you make sure that the current laws of physics about basic forces are universally applicable to all particles? Have you tested these rules on all the basic pieces of clothing you wear ?! I claim that there may be a piece of clothing that does not follow the current laws of gravity or .... – mgae2m Oct 3 '17 at 8:33
• @OscarBravo A scientific theory isn't just a tool for making predictions, it is an acccount of what is happening in reality. By that standard Newtonian mechanics is false. It is sometimes accurate for some particular practical purpose. It is also sometimes the case that parts of the account it gives are not false. But that doesn't make it true. – alanf Oct 3 '17 at 8:49
• @MGae2M I don't make sure my theories apply to everything. All knowledge is guesswork controlled by criticism. In the absence of a specific criticism of a theory there is no reason to discard it and there are criticisms of discarding it: all the alternatives have been refuted. – alanf Oct 3 '17 at 8:51
• @MGae2M I invite you to sup from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot – Oscar Bravo Oct 3 '17 at 12:01

We observe the same structure (shape) in all galaxies at all ranges. We observe the same light spectrum from close and distant stars and galaxies. These facts tell us that the force of gravity and of electromagnetism must be the same in those galaxies as they are in this one.

• Yes that's right. This is an assumption. How does this assertion prove to be true? (That fundamental particles in all parts of the world follow the same rules?) – mgae2m Oct 3 '17 at 8:37
• Not an assumption. These are observations. You have seen telescope pictures? – Oscar Bravo Oct 3 '17 at 12:15

You should start by realising that it is not possible to prove a negative. Hence, nobody can prove that your hypothetical particle doesn't exist. Nor can anybody prove that there is no god, or no fairies at the bottom of my garden.

So yes, your particles might exist. If they exist, and they obey natural laws, presumably science will discover them at some point in the future. If they don't obey natural laws then they are outside the realm of science. If you want to claim a "supernatural" object then I would suggest the onus is on you to prove its existence. And, as we are physical beings, there seems to be no way objects can affect us without using at least some of the laws of physics. That would make them non-supernatural, and hence detectable with the right equipment.

Let me add that science already recognises particles that do not seem to obey the known laws. I'm talking here about dark matter. There is a lot of evidence for it, e.g. the movement of galaxies, of stars in a galaxy, gravitational lensing, the pattern of variation in the CMB, simulations of the growth of galaxies, etc). It is generally agreed that billions of dark matter particles pass through us without any effect. Yet, all our efforts to detect them have been in vain, so far - but we keep trying. Note that dark matter does obey Newton's (and Einstein's) law.

The laws of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, when applied to the known particles, let us make predictions accurate to 13 decimal places. So these laws must be close to the truth. Yet we also know they cannot be the final truth, as they are incompatible with each other. When we finally come up with some form of quantum gravity these incompatibilities may disappear, and at the same time other particles, fields and forces may reveal themselves. These may be the particles you hypothesise, but their effects will only be visible beyond the 13th decimal - in other words, not in practical experience.

• Regard. I have come to terms with this question that I intend to publish in the future. – mgae2m Oct 4 '17 at 4:32
• I do not understand. "come to terms" seems to say you've accepted reality. "intend to publish" implies you think you've found your particles. I hope you found them through experiment or through (correctly applied) mathematics - not just philosophy. – hdhondt Oct 4 '17 at 4:58
• @hdhondt- I became more aware that we have what we say and what we mean. – mgae2m Oct 4 '17 at 5:28

How is it known at any point in the space of this universe that there is no particle in which its gravitational force does not follow Newton's law or other current laws?

Physical laws are describing what happens in the real world in some conditional boundaries. A good example is the discovery of weight and mass.

Ages ago it was described that bodies have a weight. Later it was found out that bodies have mass and their weight depends from the gravitation. We extended our law beyond the earths surface. The mass of a body is the same on earth and on the moon but this body has less weight on the moon than on earth. The weight one can measure with a spring scale, the mass one can calculate measuring the acceleration of this body applying a force: m = F/a.

A century years ago Einstein find out that the mass will be different in dependence from its velocity in relation to the speed of light and more than this to the gravitational potential there they are located. Near a Black hole a body gain mass. The related equations have guessed components because nobody reaches a Black hole to measure his mass nearby. The introduction of Dark mass and Dark energy are a try to remain this equations. Another try would be the recognition that Einstein’s (and of other scientists) equations are incomplete.

This is one example of what we know and what we suppose and under which conditions a law is right or incomplete.

• I claim that there may be a particle on Earth that does not follow the fundamental rules of physics in the forces. – mgae2m Oct 3 '17 at 8:26
• And, to a post-modernist at least, your theory may be as good as any other. Just don't try yo live by your alternative theories, or you may end up dead. There's a reason why evolution has given us the senses (and brains) we have: they work in real life. – hdhondt Oct 3 '17 at 9:52
• @MGae2M Claim all you like. But if you want anyone to listen to you, provide evidence. – Oscar Bravo Oct 3 '17 at 12:02
• @MGae2M The vast likelyhood is that if such a particle existed it would make itself known because of the fact that it behaves so differently. Plus it would be "close" to all of the human apparatuses of detecting its unusual nature. A particle billions of light years away that is aberrant is much more likely, but still we would not expect that to exist either. – Todd Wilcox Oct 3 '17 at 12:55
• @MGae2M Without any use but a thesis about the constituents of EM fields see here: Are photons composed particles and more fundamental but very dry written Complex one-dimensional structures of space – HolgerFiedler Oct 5 '17 at 21:12

## Introduction

I believe that all basic sciences have grown up on philosophy grounds (In the phase of documenting, translating and expressing meaning) and have been based on the foundations of philosophy.

Because part of the work is the expression and transfer of meanings. And this (including the combination of propositions and logical inferences for the purpose of obtaining theories) is precisely the part in which philosophy is responsible.

And this part is an infrastructure.

## Explanations

We define the well-known fundamental particles with their properties as spins, adherence to gravitational laws and etc.

If there is an electron in a place that does not follow the laws of gravity or other current rules, in fact it will not be called the electron particle.

And our definition is that if a particle has all of these properties, then it has a special name.


## Conclusion

As a result, whenever a particle is found (for example, an electron or quark or etc or unknown) that does not follow previous rules and properties (for example spin, laws of gravity, etc, or unknown rules or properties), that particle needs a new name and redefines it.

• You're just waffling with definitions - that's not physics. – hdhondt Oct 6 '17 at 3:25
• Yes exactly. It was my problem. – mgae2m Oct 6 '17 at 6:43