Exceptions in Scientific Laws?

[Inferno]

Labeling something as a law means it is considered to always happens. However, it is always possible that there is some kind of exception that we aren't aware of at this time. One example I would use is flipping a coin. Anyone you ask will tell you a coin has a 50/50 chance of landing on either heads or tails. But one time I flipped a coin it landed on the side in between heads and tail, getting lodged in the dirt. These minor exceptions are the ones I'm asking about.

What law of physics, thermodynamics, or any other have you found an exception in? Could you explain what experiment or thoughts caused this exception and how do you think it could be used?

 

[start at edge]

Labeling something as a law means it is considered to always happens. However, it is always possible that there is some kind of exception that we aren't aware of at this time. One example I would use is flipping a coin. Anyone you ask will tell you a coin has a 50/50 chance of landing on either heads or tails. But one time I flipped a coin it landed on the side in between heads and tail, getting lodged in the dirt. These minor exceptions are the ones I'm asking about.

What law of physics, thermodynamics, or any other have you found an exception in? Could you explain what experiment or thoughts caused this exception and how do you think it could be used?

As I see it, maybe the basic statement is not quite accurate, because in the case of your coin, it did not flip. Flipping, by definition, means turning from one side to another … your coin did not land on any of the two sides, so it did not actually flip.
A much closer to the truth approach would be if someone would tell you a coin has a 49.99/49.99 chance of landing on either heads or tails and 0.02 chance of landing otherwise (because there is an “otherwise” in this case).

 

[Inferno]

As I see it, maybe the basic statement is not quite accurate, because in the case of your coin, it did not flip. Flipping, by definition, means turning from one side to another … your coin did not land on any of the two sides, so it did not actually flip.
A much closer to the truth approach would be if someone would tell you a coin has a 49.99/49.99 chance of landing on either heads or tails and 0.02 chance of landing otherwise (because there is an “otherwise” in this case).

Yeah, the coin may not have been the greatest example but it was the best I could think of. Just replace the word flip with coin toss and it should work fine. What I was trying to say is that something can appear to always happen when there could be a very low chance of something else happening. Also that something could behave differently under certain conditions we don't know about or don't yet know exist. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough.

 

[start at edge]

Yeah, the coin may not have been the greatest example but it was the best I could think of. Just replace the word flip with coin toss and it should work fine. What I was trying to say is that something can appear to always happen when there could be a very low chance of something else happening. Also that something could behave differently under certain conditions we don't know about or don't yet know exist. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough.

I got the idea now.
Yes, what you said is absolutely true – “that something can APPEAR to always happen” but when that other chance emerges, even if very tiny, it changes “always” to “sometimes”.
The examples are many:
One could say that every time he turns the switch on, there is light in his room … but what if the bulb is fried or the electricity cut off – then “sometimes” the light doesn’t go on when he turns the switch.
Also, one could say that there is no way the sun will not rise the next morning because that would mean the earth stopped rotating or the sun vanished, which is most unlikely to happen … what if he dies in his sleep – the sun will not rise FOR HIM anymore, bringing this out of causality aspect and putting it into relativity.
It is also true what you said about certain conditions that determine completely different outcomes of some processes, depending of the nature of that condition or by it occurring or not. In most cases, even scientific processes are not doubted to happen but rather WHY they happen as they do.
The physics and the math that we have at hand right now, doesn’t exclude in any way time reversal for example … and when math proves something, I for one completely trust it. In certain conditions and under certain circumstances, time could be manipulated, I am convinced about that, we only didn’t figure out yet what those conditions are (but we’re working on it), just like you said “conditions we don't know about or don't yet know exist”.
If you drop a rock from the top of a building, prediction tells us not only that it will eventually hit the ground, but also when and where, but this prediction is within a certain system because if the system is extended you may find that half on the way down the rock was pulverized by a bullet, or hit a bird, or hooked to the dress of some lady who shook it out the window to de-dust it.
I think that labeling something as a law doesn’t necessarily mean it is considered to always happen, it better would be adding “in some certain conditions”. Through time, some so-called laws (of science) are updated, not because of any exceptions but because some of those conditions were revealed, discovered.

 

[Mako]

Labeling something as a law means it is considered to always happens. However, it is always possible that there is some kind of exception that we aren't aware of at this time. One example I would use is flipping a coin. Anyone you ask will tell you a coin has a 50/50 chance of landing on either heads or tails. But one time I flipped a coin it landed on the side in between heads and tail, getting lodged in the dirt. These minor exceptions are the ones I'm asking about.

What law of physics, thermodynamics, or any other have you found an exception in? Could you explain what experiment or thoughts caused this exception and how do you think it could be used?

I guess something similar to your coin flip would be time itself? The law of time is that it’s always moving. Forwards or backwards (like heads or tails), but there is a chance that time could ultimately stop (just like you could land a coin on the edge)

 

[start at edge]

I guess something similar to your coin flip would be time itself? The law of time is that it’s always moving. Forwards or backwards (like heads or tails), but there is a chance that time could ultimately stop (just like you could land a coin on the edge)

It is similar but from a slightly different perspective, as time itself does not move, instead we are moving through it. For some complicated reasons (universe expansion, gravity, junction between space and time, etc.) this movement is not under human control (not yet).
You can not have a “stopped” time, just the same as you can not have an electron that stands still, as an electron exists only in motion – once it changes (decreases) speed, it becomes something else, mainly a form of energy radiation – NOT a particle. Only a simulation that is very close to time “stop” could be created, but it would be only a simulation, for a human observer it would only create the illusion that time stopped. Furthermore, it would be detectable only for the “traveler” … an external observer would not even perceive anything.

 

[TimeFlipper]

Labeling something as a law means it is considered to always happens. However, it is always possible that there is some kind of exception that we aren't aware of at this time. One example I would use is flipping a coin. Anyone you ask will tell you a coin has a 50/50 chance of landing on either heads or tails. But one time I flipped a coin it landed on the side in between heads and tail, getting lodged in the dirt. These minor exceptions are the ones I'm asking about.

What law of physics, thermodynamics, or any other have you found an exception in? Could you explain what experiment or thoughts caused this exception and how do you think it could be used?

Hi..If the coin you flipped had landed on its side for 10 times consecutively, it would have fallen into the area of Synchronicity (From Carl Jung for explaining "meaningful coincidences") ..

 

[Harte]

Science doesn't refer to it's findings as "Laws." Sometimes schoolbooks do though. The idea that there are immutable laws in Physics (anyway) went out the window a long time ago.
Nowadays there are theories - which have to explain the data and have to be falsifiable to be accepted.
Scientific theories are destined to be supplanted by later theories that further refine the understanding of what data present (usually when we develop better ways of collecting data.) But those also have to be falsifiable.

Certain relationships between variables in science are also called "laws." Most people know about Boyle's Law, for example.
Boyle's Law gives the relationship between pressure, volume and temperature in any gas. But it doesn't say anything about why gas acts like that so it's not a theory and not subject to revision, barring trying to use it on something that's not a "gas" as we know it. Like a cloud of quarks or something.

Harte

 

[Einstein]

My current study of interest falls right in line with the topic of this thread. Most of you have seen the couple of videos I've posted on "The Intermediate Axis Theorem". What I didn't say before is that the nuclear weak force has a striking similarity to "The Intermediate Axis Theorem". The thing that nobody noticed was that you all were witnessing the conservation law of angular momentum go right down the drain. Here is another video of this phenomena of someone else that is interested in this phenomena. Watch the spinning wingnut at the beginning. The wingnut clearly flips over yet assumes the previous spin direction. It seems as if there are two independent spin states.

 

[Inferno]

The physics and the math that we have at hand right now, doesn’t exclude in any way time reversal for example … and when math proves something, I for one completely trust it.

Completely agree that what we have discovered through math is reliable for the most part. I just can't help but feel we are missing some key information.

Hi..If the coin you flipped had landed on its side for 10 times consecutively, it would have fallen into the area of Synchronicity (From Carl Jung for explaining "meaningful coincidences")

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that when something has a very low probability of happening, it holds meaning?

I guess something similar to your coin flip would be time itself? The law of time is that it’s always moving. Forwards or backwards (like heads or tails), but there is a chance that time could ultimately stop (just like you could land a coin on the edge)

I think if time were to stop it would have stopped already. I believe there is some force the keeps us existing and moving forward in the present. If we move the the past or future that then becomes out present, still moving forward at a constant rate.

Science doesn't refer to it's findings as "Laws." Sometimes schoolbooks do though. The idea that there are immutable laws in Physics (anyway) went out the window a long time ago.
Nowadays there are theories - which have to explain the data and have to be falsifiable to be accepted.
Scientific theories are destined to be supplanted by later theories that further refine the understanding of what data present (usually when we develop better ways of collecting data.) But those also have to be falsifiable.

I guess that was a misconception I made. While going through school I found that almost all professors/teachers taught everything as if it were fact. While most information taught in schools is reliable, it still irks me that the only teacher I had that mentioned everything is theory was my high school chemistry teacher.

My current study of interest falls right in line with the topic of this thread. Most of you have seen the couple of videos I've posted on "The Intermediate Axis Theorem". What I didn't say before is that the nuclear weak force has a striking similarity to "The Intermediate Axis Theorem". The thing that nobody noticed was that you all were witnessing the conservation law of angular momentum go right down the drain. Here is another video of this phenomena of someone else that is interested in this phenomena. Watch the spinning wingnut at the beginning. The wingnut clearly flips over yet assumes the previous spin direction. It seems as if there are two independent spin states.

That is really intriguing. I wonder if it would be possible to catch the forces created by spinning an object in that way. I can't really think of ways to use this, but it is interesting.