0
$\begingroup$

Are there laws (axioms / principles / equations / inequalities) in physics that cannot be violated, no matter how slightly, by hand without leading to absurdities (singularities, inconsistencies)?

$\endgroup$

closed as too broad by Qmechanic Jan 16 '18 at 21:50

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This appears to be a list-based question which is generally considered as off-topic as being too broad. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Jan 16 '18 at 20:44
  • $\begingroup$ What is a "negotiable" law, really? I mean, apart from misuses /shorthand uses of the term law, such as the second law of thermodynamics, surely it is either a law or it is not. I appreciate your caveat about experimental results, but don't anomalies between theory and measurement usually give us a new law? $\endgroup$ – user181180 Jan 16 '18 at 20:55
  • $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos Would it still be too broad if I limit the question to the non-negotiable part only? That should shorten the list a lot. $\endgroup$ – Emitabsorb Jan 16 '18 at 21:11
  • $\begingroup$ @Countto10 Negotiable laws are laws that can be violated slightly within the parts of the parameter space that we have explored so far without destroying the internal consistencies of our theory. But they could potentially be violated significantly outside of the regime that we have explored. $\endgroup$ – Emitabsorb Jan 16 '18 at 21:11
  • $\begingroup$ @Emitabsorb yes, still too broad because you're asking for a list. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Jan 16 '18 at 21:38
2
$\begingroup$

I don't think this question is really answerable, or at least the question is "everything can be violated to within experimental error" Like, I can even envision some theory where you don't have some notion of causality in the sense of, say, global hyperbolicity, but you recover it in some sort of classical limit.

In fact, I would argue, Newton's insistence on notions like this against Liebniz probably stymied the development of special relativity more than they otherwise would have without the sacred cow of Newton's global reference frame.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I imagine that certain types of violations could entail results that seem impossible to interpret, e.g. probabilities being negative. $\endgroup$ – Emitabsorb Jan 16 '18 at 21:25

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.