Many physicists live under the impression that a set of strict and immutable laws govern the Universe, but not everyone is convinced of this.

“What we often call the laws of physics are actually just constant mathematical theories that seem to fit certain aspects of nature,” physicist Sankar Das Sarma wrote in an editorial for the journal New Scientist.

The laws of physics are meant to describe our collective reality, even though “they evolve as our empirical knowledge of the Universe improves.”

“Look, what’s the matter. Despite the fact that many scientists believe that their role is to discover these absolute laws, I simply do not believe that they exist,” wrote the physicist.

The physicist wondered how people could be so arrogant

Before Albert Einstein’s revolutionary – and ultimately unfinished – attempts to create the Theory of Wholeness, as well as all the advances that have followed since then in fields such as quantum mechanics, the physicist argues that such a suggestion would not have seemed outlandish.

Indeed, Sarma acknowledges the “amazing” efforts of people “who can understand some aspects of the Universe through the laws of physics.”

“As we discover more and more about nature, we can refine our understanding, but everything is infinite. Just like when you remove the layers of an infinite onion, the more we peel, the more we will have to peel”, explained the physicist, quoted by Futurism.

Referring to the concept of the multiverse, or an infinite number of universes, Sarma wondered how humans could be so arrogant as to imagine that the rules that govern our reality could be applied to any other universe.

“Something else should replace quantum mechanics”

Turning to a theoretical argument, Sarma added that even when faced with a substantial theory like quantum mechanics, which he says is more like “a set of rules that we use to express our own laws rather than be the absolute law itself,” there remain too many unanswered questions and variables to be able to say that this so-called fundamental theory is sacrosanct.

“It’s hard to imagine that, a thousand years from now, physicists will be using quantum mechanics as the fundamental description of nature. Something else should replace quantum mechanics by that time, just as quantum mechanics replaced Newtonian mechanics,” added Sarma.

However, the physicist did not want to speculate on what that alternative would be. Even so, there is “no particular reason why our description of how the physical Universe appears to work must reach an apogee at the beginning of the 21st century and remain forever at quantum mechanics.” “That would be a really depressing thought!” Sarma concluded.

Leave A Reply