What are the Laws of Physics and How Often Are They Broken?

The laws of physics are universal principles derived from repeated observations and experiments that describe how matter, energy, and forces behave in nature, and they are never truly broken but can sometimes appear violated under extreme or incomplete conditions outside their range of applicability.

The laws of physics are fundamental principles that describe the behavior of the natural world, derived from extensive scientific observation, experimentation, and mathematical formulation. They reliably predict a wide range of phenomena and form the foundation of modern science.

The laws of physics describe how the universe behaves regardless of human belief, meaning that whether or not someone believes in them does not affect their actual operation and predictability in nature.

Revisions or extensions of physical laws happen relatively rarely and typically under extreme or previously unexplored conditions, such as at very high energies, very small scales (quantum level), or cosmological distances; most everyday phenomena are accurately described by established laws, but breakthroughs like quantum mechanics and relativity emerged when classical laws could no longer explain new experimental results, marking significant but infrequent paradigm shifts in physics.

For centuries, many have attempted to prove that the mind can override or break the laws of physics, but no scientifically verified evidence has ever succeeded; current understanding in neuroscience and physics suggests that any non-physical mind influencing the brain would require violations of fundamental physical laws like energy conservation, making such claims unsupported by empirical data.

Here is an overview of some essential laws of physics, what they predict, and how they shape our understanding of the universe:

Newton’s Laws of Motion
– First Law (Inertia): Predicts that an object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion continues with constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force. For example, a book on a table will not move unless pushed, and a rolling soccer ball keeps moving until friction stops it.
– Second Law (F = ma): Predicts how an object’s acceleration depends on the force applied and its mass. For instance, it explains why pushing a full shopping cart requires more force than an empty one.
– Third Law (Action-Reaction): Predicts that every force has an equal and opposite force. This is seen when a rocket’s exhaust gases push backward, propelling the rocket forward.

Law of Universal Gravitation
Predicts the gravitational force between two masses is proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. It explains why planets orbit the sun and why objects fall to Earth.

Coulomb’s Law
Predicts the electrostatic force between two charged objects depends on the magnitude of their charges and distance. It governs forces in static electricity and is crucial in circuits.

Hooke’s Law
Predicts how a spring stretches or compresses in direct proportion to the applied force, fundamental to understanding elasticity.

Bernoulli’s Principle
Predicts that an increase in fluid velocity decreases pressure, explaining how airplane wings generate lift.

Boyle’s Law
Predicts that at constant temperature, the pressure and volume of a gas vary inversely, relevant to breathing and syringes.

Laws of Thermodynamics
– First Law (Conservation of Energy): Predicts energy cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed, as when potential energy converts into kinetic energy downhill.
– Zeroth Law: Establishes temperature by stating if two bodies are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are in equilibrium with each other.
– Second and Third Laws govern entropy and absolute zero behavior.

Conservation Laws
– Energy: Total energy in isolated systems remains constant.
– Momentum: Total momentum is conserved in collisions.
– Charge: Electric charge is conserved.

Kepler’s Laws
Predict planetary motions: planets orbit in ellipses, sweep equal areas over equal times, and their orbital periods relate to their distances from the Sun.

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity
– Mass-Energy Equivalence (E=mc²): Predicts mass can convert to energy and vice versa, laying the foundation for nuclear power and particle physics.
– Also predicts how gravity affects space and time, explaining phenomena like gravitational time dilation.

Faraday’s Law of Electromagnetic Induction
Predicts that a changing magnetic field induces an electric current, foundational to electric generators.

Ohm’s Law
Predicts the current through a conductor varies directly with voltage and inversely with resistance, crucial for understanding electrical circuits.

Planck’s Law
Predicts energy quantization in electromagnetic waves, underpinning quantum mechanics and the behavior of atoms.

Archimedes’ Principle
Predicts the buoyant force on a body immersed in fluid equals the weight of the fluid displaced, explaining why objects float or sink.

Each of these laws has been demonstrated through experiments and observations — from simple activities like pushing objects and measuring gas pressure, to complex measurements of planetary orbits and atomic emissions. They enable humans to predict the outcomes of countless physical events with remarkable accuracy within their domains of applicability. Together, these fundamental laws reveal the elegant and consistent patterns governing matter, energy, motion, and forces in our universe.[1][2][3][4][5]

This solid foundation allows physics not only to explain everyday phenomena but also to explore the frontiers of knowledge, from the subatomic world described by quantum mechanics to the cosmological scale addressed by relativity, continually expanding our understanding of how the universe works.

How Old are the Laws of Physics?

The laws of physics span a vast timeline, with many foundational principles dating back thousands of years and others discovered more recently:

– Ancient Greek Philosophers (circa 600-300 BCE) introduced early ideas of natural laws and elements, such as Thales proposing water as a fundamental substance, Democritus theorizing atomism, and Archimedes discovering buoyancy (~250 BCE).

– Aristotle (384-322 BCE) formulated natural philosophy and early physics concepts that dominated thought for centuries.

– Classical Mechanics and Astronomy (17th century): Isaac Newton published his laws of motion and universal gravitation in 1687, which became the cornerstone of classical physics. Around the same time, Galileo (early 1600s) studied motion and inertia; Kepler (early 1600s) formulated laws of planetary motion.

– Laws Governing Gases and Elasticity (17th century): Boyle’s law (1662) and Hooke’s law (1660) were formulated based on experiments.

– Electromagnetism and Thermodynamics (19th century): Fundamental laws including Maxwell’s equations and laws of thermodynamics were established.

– Modern Physics (20th century): Einstein’s theory of relativity (special relativity in 1905, general relativity in 1915) transformed our understanding of space, time, and gravity. The development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s revolutionized physics at atomic and subatomic scales.

In summary, some laws are over 2,000 years old from ancient natural philosophy foundations, many classical physics laws date around 300-400 years old from the Scientific Revolution, and fundamental modern laws of relativity and quantum mechanics are about 100 years old. Each has built progressively on the discoveries and refinements of previous centuries.[10][11][12][13][14]

How Many Laws of Physics Are There Exactly?

There is no single, exact number of laws of physics because they encompass a broad range of fundamental principles that describe different aspects of the natural world, but commonly referenced lists highlight around a dozen core laws, including Newton’s three laws of motion, the law of universal gravitation, the four laws of thermodynamics, Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism, Coulomb’s law, Hooke’s law, Bernoulli’s principle, Ohm’s law, Planck’s law, and Einstein’s theory of relativity; these collectively capture the essential rules that govern matter, energy, motion, forces, and interactions, while ongoing scientific research occasionally broadens or refines this set.

Roughly speaking, there are about a dozen fundamental laws of physics that are widely recognized as essential, including Newton’s three laws of motion, the law of universal gravitation, the four laws of thermodynamics, Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism, Coulomb’s law, Hooke’s law, Bernoulli’s principle, Ohm’s law, Planck’s law, and Einstein’s theory of relativity; these core laws collectively explain the key principles that govern motion, energy, forces, and interactions in the universe.

As an Example, What Laws of Physics Would a Breatharian be Breaking?

A person not eating or drinking for four years but appearing to be a normal, healthy individual would directly violate several fundamental laws of physics and biology, primarily the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy), which states energy cannot be created or destroyed—since the body requires energy from food and water to sustain basic metabolic functions and maintain homeostasis. Additionally, biological and physiological principles grounded in physics, like metabolism, cellular respiration, and hydration, would also be contradicted because the body needs nutrients and fluids to survive, repair tissues, and carry out chemical processes. Such a scenario is physically impossible according to current scientific understanding, as even prolonged supervised fasting beyond a few weeks or months leads to severe health decline or death, demonstrating that these laws are upheld without exception in living organisms.

What if Science Non-Believers Become Angry About Scientific Reasoning?

If science non-believers become angry when you support scientific thinking, responding with patience, respect, and clear communication about science’s foundation—in evidence, critical thinking, and willingness to revise conclusions with new data—is crucial; effective defense of science emphasizes its core values like transparency, skepticism, and reproducibility, rather than presenting it as unchallengeable dogma. However, this openness to change can sometimes be misunderstood as uncertainty or weakness, leading some people to dismiss scientific knowledge altogether, which can have harmful consequences.

For Example, What about TCM?

Convincing someone that their ancient tradition was largely based on self-delusion for millennia requires sensitivity and respect, alongside clear evidence.

Many ancient traditions arose from a combination of careful observation, cultural beliefs, and attempts to explain the unknown, but without modern scientific methods, they often included misunderstandings and inaccuracies. Over time, science has tested these ideas rigorously, revealing that while some practices have value, many were based on incorrect assumptions or coincidence rather than reliable cause and effect. Recognizing this doesn’t diminish the cultural importance or the intent behind these traditions, but embracing evidence-based knowledge helps us improve health and well-being far beyond what was possible before.

Some foundational ideas in Traditional Chinese Medicine grouped diverse physiological traits under broad labels. For example, Jin Ye refers collectively to body fluids like saliva, sweat, and mucus without distinguishing lymph, blood plasma, or intracellular fluids. Separately, Jing represents a vital essence or life force, not body fluids. These categories reflect ancient holistic frameworks before modern anatomy and physiology, aiming to describe complex biological processes broadly rather than precisely. This shows why traditional concepts were valuable for their time but don’t align exactly with current biomedical understanding.

Because Western medicine is based on detailed knowledge of anatomy, biochemistry, and physiology, and relies on rigorous scientific testing, it is generally more precise and effective in diagnosing and treating diseases, particularly in complex or acute cases where targeted interventions are required.

The Logical Error of Lumping Things In Together

The longstanding human error of lumping distinct concepts together under a single label—without recognizing their unique characteristics—has led to vague and misleading conclusions. This oversimplification is at the core of many ancient mistaken beliefs that persisted for millennia. By obscuring important differences, it prevents accurate understanding and hinders effective problem-solving. While broad categorization was often necessary in traditional medicine and early science due to limited knowledge, modern science requires distinguishing separate elements—like different bodily fluids or forces—to provide precise explanations and effective treatments. Recognizing and correcting this error is essential for developing accurate models that reflect reality and advancing knowledge in any field.

Non-Science Believer: “Science is Reductionistic!”

When someone argues, “But this is reductionistic! It ignores the whole person, so it must fail,” a helpful response is: While reductionism breaks complex systems into parts to understand mechanisms, it doesn’t ignore the whole—it provides the detailed knowledge needed to see how parts interact and contribute to the larger system. Modern science increasingly embraces both reductionist and holistic approaches, recognizing that understanding individual components is essential to grasping the full complexity of the whole person and effectively improving health.

Non-Science Believer: “Science Ignores the Soul of the Person, Their Inner Conflicts and Traumas which Cause Disease!”

Science does not ignore the soul or inner conflicts; rather, modern scientific approaches actively address psychological trauma and its impact on health through evidence-based therapies. Treatments like Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR), Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT), and Prolonged Exposure Therapy (PE) have been rigorously tested and shown to effectively help patients process trauma, reduce symptoms of PTSD, and improve mental well-being. These therapies recognize the complex interplay of mind and body, acknowledging how inner conflicts and past experiences can cause or contribute to illness, and offer structured, compassionate methods to heal from them based on scientific research.

Non-Science Believer: “Ha! So Science Admits German New Medicine is RIght!”

German New Medicine (GNM), developed by Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer, claims that diseases like cancer arise solely from unresolved psychological conflicts and that healing occurs by resolving these conflicts without traditional treatments like chemotherapy. However, GNM lacks scientific validation: no rigorous, peer-reviewed studies support its efficacy, and many medical experts warn that relying on it can be dangerous, with documented cases of harm and death. While some adherents report anecdotal recoveries, these do not meet scientific standards of evidence. Mainstream medicine rejects GNM because it ignores genetic, environmental, and biological factors proven to cause diseases. Science does not endorse German New Medicine as valid or effective.

Non-Science Believer: “But you Just Said Modern Science Addresses Psychological Trauma Impact on Health!”

It’s important to separate two very different things. Scientific trauma therapies—like EMDR or cognitive-behavioral therapy—are evidence-based treatments that have been rigorously tested and proven to help people heal by addressing both mind and body mechanisms. In contrast, German New Medicine (GNM) is an unproven and scientifically rejected theory that attributes almost all diseases solely to unresolved psychological conflicts and dismisses established biological causes and treatments. While psychological trauma can significantly affect physical health, scientific evidence clearly shows that trauma is one of many contributing factors, not the sole cause of all illnesses.

For example, studies have linked trauma—especially in childhood—with increased risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, and cancer, often through biological pathways like chronic inflammation, hormonal imbalances, and immune dysfunction. However, these illnesses also involve genetic, environmental, infectious, and lifestyle factors that trauma alone cannot explain. Thus, modern science recognizes trauma’s important but partial role in health, emphasizing a multifactorial model rather than attributing all diseases purely to psychological causes. This distinction is critical to separate evidence-based trauma impact from unfounded claims that all illness is just psychological. Recognizing this distinction is key to understanding why science accepts trauma’s role in health but rejects GNM’s sweeping, unsupported claims.

Scientific Method Helps Separate Conflated Dissimilar Things

The scientific method plays a crucial role in separating conflated, dissimilar things by rigorously testing and analyzing each element individually, rather than grouping them together indiscriminately. Conflating distinct phenomena into a single category is a form of oversimplification that often leads to misunderstandings and errors in interpreting how things truly work. By emphasizing careful observation, experimentation, and repeatability, science helps clarify differences, uncover underlying mechanisms, and avoid the mistakes that arise from treating complex or unrelated factors as if they were the same.

Non-Science Believer: “But I Don’t Like Reductionism, It is Stupid!”

You’re right to be cautious about reductionism when it oversimplifies complex realities, but reductionism itself isn’t stupid—it’s a valuable tool that breaks down complicated systems into understandable parts. This approach allows scientists to study details precisely before putting them back together to see how they interact as a whole. Modern science combines reductionist methods with holistic perspectives to capture both the parts and the bigger picture, improving our understanding and ability to address real-world problems effectively.

Scientific Method Gave us the Laws of Physics

To close this now somewhat long article, scientific method is the systematic process that allowed humans to discover and formulate the laws of physics. By making careful observations, forming hypotheses, and rigorously testing these ideas through repeatable experiments, scientists like Isaac Newton were able to identify consistent patterns in nature—such as motion, gravity, and energy—that hold true under specific conditions. These findings, grounded in empirical evidence and mathematical description, became the foundational laws of physics. Over time, continued experimentation and verification have refined and expanded these laws, but their development fundamentally depends on the scientific method’s emphasis on observation, testing, and evidence-based conclusions.

Non-Science Believer: “I Still Don’t Believe in Your Laws of Physics”

The laws of physics aren’t matters of belief—they are descriptions of consistent patterns observed and confirmed through repeated experiments and observations over centuries. These laws reliably predict how the world behaves, from everyday phenomena to advanced technologies like airplanes, computers, and medical imaging. Rejecting them means dismissing the evidence that underpins much of modern life and technology. If you’re open to it, exploring how these laws are tested and applied might make them less abstract and more convincing.

Ancient Poem Translated: Akkadian “Stone of Missing Friendship”

Bridging the Divide: Overcoming Science Rejection to Secure Humanity’s Future

How Our Brain Shapes the Human Spirit: The Science Behind Who We Are

The Growing Problem of AI Generating Inappropriate Images

Could Lithium Orotate Help Neuro Lyme Disease

Gut Bacteria May Cause Parkinson’s: A. Potential Microbiome-Based Cure

Why You Should Never Bathe in Pure Olive Oil, Even Organic

Rethinking “God-Fearing”: The Role of Human Authority in Religious Obedience

Ideal Workout Recovery Supplementation

Lithium Orotate Reversed Brain Damage and Restored Memory in Mice

News i8