# Laws of physics **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 28, 2017, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-of-physics/785429 "2017-04-28T11:58:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-of-physics/785429/21 "2017-04-28T22:07:36Z")
Realizing that the conversation has moved on a bit, but as this deals directly with what I do… > [@septimus](#): > > How close are physicists to being able to deduce the properties of simple chemicals (e.g. water, oxygen, methane) from fundamental physics constants? This has been possible for decades, with a couple of caveats. [ol] [li]You’ll get a prediction which says the property of interest is a number times fundamental physical constants (e.g. a bond length would be a number of Bohr radii, and the Bohr radius depends on Planck’s constant and the electron charge and mass). To derive the number, you must solve Schrodinger’s equation, for which purpose we use computers.[/li][li]In practice, the computer time required to exactly solve Schrodinger’s equation is laughably out of reach, so one must approximate. Unsurprisingly, better approximations give more accurate predictions at the cost of more computer time.[/li][li]Note the difference between “deducing the properties of a molecule” and “deducing the properties of Avogadro’s number of molecules.” The former requires quantum mechanics; the latter takes the output of quantum mechanics and passes it into statistical mechanics, which is not my area of expertise.[/li][/ol] ---
**Author:** ![Great\_White\_Dope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/22d042/32.png) [@Great\_White\_Dope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_White_Dope)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-of-physics/785429/22 "2017-04-28T22:52:35Z")
We all know what a fine-tuned universe overwhelmingly implies by all reasonably interpretations. I strongly suspect that’s why CalMeacham, and the like-minded, are so eager to reject the evidence, and instead appeal to evidence-free alternative universes. I’m curious to know if Cal will admit to that being the case? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-of-physics/785429/23 "2017-04-28T23:17:47Z")
> [@Great\_White\_Dope](#): > > We all know what a fine-tuned universe overwhelmingly implies by all reasonably interpretations… I’m guessing that you just joined to tell us the correct answer, the multiverse? Or do you think Isis did it when she created the world? Zeus? Buddha? Help me out here. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_White\_Dope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/22d042/32.png) [@Great\_White\_Dope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_White_Dope)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2017, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-of-physics/785429/24 "2017-04-29T01:23:27Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > I’m guessing that you just joined to tell us the correct answer, the multiverse? > > Or do you think Isis did it when she created the world? > Zeus? > Buddha? > > Help me out here. The fine-tuned universe overwhelmingly implies a cosmic fine-tuner, which implies God. Whether this is the revealed God of any specific religion cannot be determined solely from said fine-tuned universe. All I ask is that the fine-tuning deniers be upfront and honest about the reason for their denial. Let’s not pretend like it’s rooted in good science or valid reasoning when it’s clearly rooted in a fear of the implications of fine-tuning. ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2017, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-of-physics/785429/25 "2017-04-29T01:43:35Z")
> [@Great\_White\_Dope](#): > > The fine-tuned universe overwhelmingly implies a cosmic fine-tuner, which implies God. No. Certainly not overwhelmingly, and in reality no particular reason at all. The weak anthropic principle has things pretty much covered. For many the weak anthropic principle is a somewhat unsatisfactory answer, as we are used to scientific results that allow us to derive the answers from more fundamental principles. But it is a vastly easier to justify answer than an appeal to revealed truth. Science continues to be a work in progress in understanding. Science doesn’t stop and throw its hands up and decide God is the reason. We have no reason to believe that a lot more of the slew of “constants” are actually derivable from the remainder. The current lack of any overarching unification theory makes such derivation impossible at the moment. That does not in any way mean there are not reasonable expectations that it can and will be done. ---
**Author:** ![markn\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@markn\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markn_1)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2017, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-of-physics/785429/26 "2017-04-29T02:43:15Z")
> [@Great\_White\_Dope](#): > > The fine-tuned universe overwhelmingly implies a cosmic fine-tuner, which implies God. Yes, if you close your mind to all other possible explanations, it certainly does. ---
**Author:** ![markn\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@markn\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markn_1)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2017, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-of-physics/785429/27 "2017-04-29T02:52:12Z")
I for one am willing to admit that the apparent fine tuning of the universe’s constants is the strongest argument I know of for the existence of God. It’s still an exceedingly weak and silly argument, which I don’t for one second believe, but it’s the best of a host of even weaker and sillier arguments for His existence. It’s no more plausible that God created the universe than that the universe is a giant simulation in some vast computer, or that it’s an elaborate piece of fiction being written by a writer in another universe, or that it’s all a dream I’m dreaming. But still, sure, I agree, it’s the best argument you’ve got for God’s existence. ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2017, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-of-physics/785429/28 "2017-04-29T03:59:53Z")
> [@Francis\_Vaughan](#): > > We have no reason to believe that :smack::smack::smack::smack: There is a missing “not” in the above. We have no reason **not** to believe that :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2017, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-of-physics/785429/29 "2017-04-29T04:05:54Z")
> [@Great\_White\_Dope](#): > > The fine-tuned universe overwhelmingly implies a cosmic fine-tuner, which implies God. Then one must ask where God came from? How is it God was made so perfect unless another God made him? Turtles all the way down. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2017, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-of-physics/785429/30 "2017-04-29T04:07:25Z")
**Moderator Note** > [@Great\_White\_Dope](#): > > The fine-tuned universe overwhelmingly implies a cosmic fine-tuner, which implies God. > > Whether this is the revealed God of any specific religion cannot be determined solely from said fine-tuned universe. > > All I ask is that the fine-tuning deniers be upfront and honest about the reason for their denial. Let’s not pretend like it’s rooted in good science or valid reasoning when it’s clearly rooted in a fear of the implications of fine-tuning. Welcome to the Straight Dope, **Great White Dope**. Please note that religious discussions belong in our Great Debates forum. If you want to discuss things like God and Intelligent Design, please do so in the Great Debates, not in General Questions. General Questions is for factual questions only. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2017, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-of-physics/785429/31 "2017-04-29T09:12:12Z")
> [@g8rguy](#): > > > [@septimus](#): > > > > How close are physicists to being able to deduce the properties of simple chemicals (e.g. water, oxygen, methane) from fundamental physics constants? > > This has been possible for decades, with a couple of caveats. > [ol] > [li]You’ll get a prediction which says the property of interest is a number times fundamental physical constants (e.g. a bond length would be a number of Bohr radii, and the Bohr radius depends on Planck’s constant and the electron charge and mass). To derive the number, you must solve Schrodinger’s equation, for which purpose we use computers.[/li][li]In practice, the computer time required to exactly solve Schrodinger’s equation is laughably out of reach, so one must approximate. Unsurprisingly, better approximations give more accurate predictions at the cost of more computer time.[/li][li]Note the difference between “deducing the properties of a molecule” and “deducing the properties of Avogadro’s number of molecules.” The former requires quantum mechanics; the latter takes the output of quantum mechanics and passes it into statistical mechanics, which is not my area of expertise.[/li][/ol] For example, water has the unusual property that its liquid state is denser than its solid state. Can this be demonstrated from “first principles”? (It involves patterns among many water molecules, but not Avogadro’s-many.) How far are scientists from showing for what range of electron-charge/Planck’s parameters, it is the case that ice floats on liquid water? Connecting to the “Goldilocks” issue, it is said that that Earth’s oceanic life would be severely hindered if ice accumulated on the sea bottom. (Water has other, unrelated, Goldilocks properties.) ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2017, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-of-physics/785429/32 "2017-04-29T10:33:56Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > For example, water has the unusual property that its liquid state is denser than its solid state. Can this be demonstrated from “first principles”? (It involves patterns among many water molecules, but not Avogadro’s-many.) Yes, but not consistently, as this happens to be a hard problem. I know some good scientists who have tried and failed. But, for example, [this 2016 Proceedings of the National Academy of Science](http://www.pnas.org/content/113/30/8368.full) paper claims to have succeeded: > [@](#): > > [W]e have, for the first time to our knowledge, accurately computed the melting point of ice from first principles. … However, only when [van der Waals] interactions are accounted for, liquid water is denser than ice at coexistence … and the anomalous melting behavior that causes water to freeze from the top down can be reproduced. I suspect other people also claim to be able to do it. I’m not sure how much I would believe them, and I’m not entirely convinced by the PNAS article I cited. > [@septimus](#): > > How far are scientists from showing for what range of electron-charge/Planck’s parameters, it is the case that ice floats on liquid water? I suspect that’s still many years away, unfortunately. Obviously, if we can’t reliably predict ice to float now, you shouldn’t trust us when we predict that if you tweak things a little, ice stops floating. ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2017, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-of-physics/785429/33 "2017-04-29T11:00:31Z")
The original question is "is there a simple feature of the universe that would change things drastically ? ". Perhaps it really means “is there a simple to explain feature”. adjusting fine constants, planks and fine grain and so on… not really the thing he is asking about… Just changing the arrangement of matter - well that doesn’t really change the laws of physics. Changing the isotopes that exist naturally may vary chemistry a little bit, but not really changing any “law”. Except radioactive isotopes would break the law of “conservation of mass”… its now “conservation of mass energy” The assumption that Newtons laws are extremely accurate might break if the prevalent conditions (earth orbits a black hole close to the event horizon ??? ) and substances allowed relativistic speeds… your muscles had suitable energy to make enormous changes in velocity… eg you go out running, you need to be an expert in the Lorentz transform , Einsteins relativity … to calculate your average speed. Thats not really changing the Newtons laws… we already know they are qualified with "for v very much smaller than speed of light "… but its an example of what used to be a law breaking. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2017, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-of-physics/785429/34 "2017-04-29T20:17:10Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > How close are physicists to being able to deduce the properties of simple chemicals (e.g. water, oxygen, methane) from fundamental physics constants? When you say “properties,” what kind of properties do you mean? Do you mean things like what is the boiling point of water at sea level? I would find it fascinating if this could be determined theoretically based on the molecule. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-of-physics/785429.md?page=1)