Reviewing outdated laws

[bilby]

In a discussion elsewhere, someone quoted a ten year old article in support of their contention that nuclear power plants are safe.

Their debate opponent declared that this was an outdated idea, to which the response was "The laws of physics haven't changed since 2011".

Which prompts the question, "Why not?"

Perhaps the committee could be persuaded to increase the speed of light.

Einstein's generation didn't have to consider the impact on geostationary satellite communications latency, so it's understandable why they set it at such a low value, but an increase to maybe 10¹² m/s would certainly be useful today.

Does anyone have any other requests or suggestions for adjustments to the laws of physics that we should submit for review by the committee, to bring these laws up to date with modern needs?

 

[skepticalbip]

Hell yes...

We should repeal the laws of conservation of both mass and energy.

.. Elimination of the requirement that mass must be conserved would eliminate hunger in the world. Families would only need to stock their pantries once then forever after they could feast from the bounty.

.. Elimination of the requirement that energy must be conserved would eliminate the need for power stations (that are destroying the planet ). A portable generator could be temporarily connected to a home to power up the internal wiring then disconnected and moved on to the next home. The home owners could then forever after use the power in their wiring for lights, cooking, heat, etc.

ETA:
I have to wonder why scientists would pass such laws that are so harmful, especially to the poor of the world. They must be racist, xenophobic bastards.

 

[steve_bank]

The 'laws' of science exist as long as they have value and utility.

There is no pope of science and college of cardinals. No catechism of science.

Science rise and falls based on tests and group(global) consensus.

Newton's Laws remain a foundation of modern engineering even though we know it does not work at quantum and relativistic levels.

Newtonian gravity works fine on the surface and LEO.

Circa 1900 there were competing theories to explain electric current. The electron won out. Theories come and go.

 

[bilby]

The 'laws' of science exist as long as they have value and utility.

There is no pope of science and college of cardinals. No catechism of science.

Science rise and falls based on tests and group(global) consensus.

Newton's Laws remain a foundation of modern engineering even though we know it does not work at quantum and relativistic levels.

Newtonian gravity works fine on the surface and LEO.

Circa 1900 there were competing theories to explain electric current. The electron won out. Theories come and go.

Thanks Lieutenant Obvious. Good luck with your promotion review board.

 

[fromderinside]

First, steve_bank there is a big difference between the laws of science and the laws of physics.

In a discussion elsewhere, someone quoted a ten year old article in support of their contention that nuclear power plants are safe.

Their debate opponent declared that this was an outdated idea, to which the response was "The laws of physics haven't changed since 2011".

Which prompts the question, "Why not?"

Perhaps the committee could be persuaded to increase the speed of light.

Einstein's generation didn't have to consider the impact on geostationary satellite communications latency, so it's understandable why they set it at such a low value, but an increase to maybe 10¹² m/s would certainly be useful today.

Does anyone have any other requests or suggestions for adjustments to the laws of physics that we should submit for review by the committee, to bring these laws up to date with modern needs?

The laws of Physics aren't changing, or if they are changing man isn't able to reliably measure them so man's version of the laws of Physics are in flux.

Man's understanding what are The Laws of Physics change with each new advance in man's ability to examine reveal and measure them. Clearly today in man's version of laws of Physics rate of space and universe expansion and mass of universe are in play as we try to estimate them to get a better fix on stuff we'll probably never directly measure.

 

[steve_bank]

The 'laws' of science exist as long as they have value and utility.

There is no pope of science and college of cardinals. No catechism of science.

Science rise and falls based on tests and group(global) consensus.

Newton's Laws remain a foundation of modern engineering even though we know it does not work at quantum and relativistic levels.

Newtonian gravity works fine on the surface and LEO.

Circa 1900 there were competing theories to explain electric current. The electron won out. Theories come and go.

Adding the tail does not wag the dog. The universe does not conforms to our laws, what we call laws are models of reality not reality itself. I prefer the term model over law.A law is simply a principle so well testd by experiment that we do not question its use.

Ohm's Law. LOT, Newton's Laws. Within known bounds of the models.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Does anyone have any other requests or suggestions for adjustments to the laws of physics that we should submit for review by the committee, to bring these laws up to date with modern needs?

The laws governing the replication of life forms, allowing such variation.
We have a vaccine, and we already have new strains? What kind of quality control is that?
Or every time we class up a company in boot camp, kids bring their cold bugs together in a free-for-all. Everyone is going to suffer disimmunity to at least one strain.
Not saying end all variation, but installing a review board in the process might be helpful.
Have AN approved COVID for at least ten years, AN approved cold, maybe THE yearly flu...

 

[steve_bank]

A very useful thing would be to lessen the amount of entropy.

 

[skepticalbip]

The committee should bring the old laws up to date so they would be more useful in today's world. Newton's laws of motion were written over 300 years ago when twenty miles per hour was consider to be fast. Now we have autos that typically travel at 70mph and aircraft flying at 500mph but we are still stuck with those old laws unless the committee would agree to amend or abolish them. That v² term Newton insisted on using wasn't a big problem at 20mph but, with today's speeds, it means we are wasting a hell of a lot of gas. If the committee would drop that square, then we would burn much, much less fissile fuel and release much less carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere... it would also make auto accidents much less severe, saving lives.

 

[Swammerdami]

Can we get rid of Laws of Logic also? I vote to eliminate the Law of the Excluded Middle.

 

[bigfield]

I'd like to abolish the second law of thermodynamics. Sometimes I put too much milk in my tea, and it would be nice if I could just stir it back out again.

 

[bilby]

Can we get rid of Laws of Logic also? I vote to eliminate the Law of the Excluded Middle.

I was under the impression that that one had already been repealed, at least for online purposes. But sure, why not?

 

[fromderinside]

My vote is to revoke rationalism, rewrite or replace it with definitions dictated through empiricism.

 

[steve_bank]

In a scene from the movie very Which Way But Loose a cop stops a raggedy bunch of half witted bikers and says, 'You are walking violations of the laws of nature, but we don't enforce them around here...'.


Increasing the speed of light would speed up computers for one thing.

Laws. aka models, don't get repealed. They can go out of use and cease to appear in texts but nobody repeals anything.

I feel sorry for Bilby. He is playing the straight man with a torrent of mostly playful humor.

No theories come to mind that were ever repealed by any kind of committee. Cosmologies have come and gone as observations got better.

There were competing theories in the 19th century to explain action at a distance for magnetic and electric observations, like simple static electricity.

The aether through which a mechanical force was thought to be transferred through failed. Maxwell's synthesis passed the experimental tests. It provided a predictive model.

If there is a committee, what is the basis of any power to decide what theories should be sent to the trash folder.

 

[Bomb#20]

Does anyone have any other requests or suggestions for adjustments to the laws of physics that we should submit for review by the committee, to bring these laws up to date with modern needs?

Let's be practical here. The Law mankind would benefit most from repealing is Murphy's.

 

[steve_bank]

^he sequence genrally goes like this.

1. Think through an idea
2. Work out a cogent mathematical expression of tueory.
3. Pass it around to colleagues for review and inputs
4. Submit to a peer reviewed publication.

There used to be a link to a science archive for pre review papers. Thousands of papers are written every year. Only a few make it to high level peer review. Some people self publish books, probably to meet the publish or perish hurdle. In physics completion for recognition in academic can be fierce. Many good people and not a lot of paying jobs. Those in private research don't always get to publish.

You don't just email suggestions to a committee somewhere. Certainly not without credentials.

Me, I am an academic n0body and quite happy with it.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm sure conducting experiments fit in there somewhere. Written a few published articles, generally with a co-author who knows how to write. My strength was asking critical questions then finding answers through experiment.