Once there was a conversation on the topic – What is “Universal Law”? with three persons whom I know very well, here are there views… (there actual WhatsApp conversation).
First Person : Is coulomb’s law universal law …. ?
Second Person: Vo nice… will think on this… it is difficult to term a law as universal.
Second Person: for me the concern is the constant present in the coulomb’s law….
Second Person: Change the equal sign to nearly equal or the force is proportional to the product of two charges by the square of the distance between them… is more or less Universal Law….
Second Person: And I also do have a feeling that no law is universal law….
Second Person: it is nearly universal but not fully universal!!
First Person : Can u get the criterion to call a law universal
Second Person: the only condition I believe is that, it should be valid at all points in the universe…
Second Person: If this is a condition… Just a single law cannot become universal… (up to the physics that we know today)
First Person: What do u mean by just a single law
Second Person: one law cannot be valid at all places… anta
Second Person: Even Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation is also not a universal law… the name still sticks to it.
First Person : Howda…. (Is it?)
First Person : Elli valid alla adu? (Where it is not valid?)
Second Person: Mercury ge valid agalla… (the law is not valid for mercury…)
Second Person: GPS system ge valid agalla… (it is not a suitable law for GPS…)
First Person : Every 2 particles having mass should obey
Second Person: Yes…
First Person : Mercury ge yake aagalla (Why the law is not valid for mercury?)
Second Person: I don’t remember where I read this…
Second Person: it says like this…
First Person: the light moving near the star bends due to SR or GR what ever? But the claim is that the star attracts (not a suitable word) light particles and in turn light also attracts the star at a very negligible force (which is not zero but negligible). According to Newton’s law how can light attract star, it does not have mass (rest mass!!)
Second Person: But these things are accounted for accurate measurement of many things… which is not the direct consequence of Newton’s Law!!
First Person: The concept is different from Newton’s law ashte
Second Person: Mercury has a special kind of motion called “Precision of its Orbit” which is not explained by Newton’s law.
Second Person: Yes, that puts a question on Mass? Does mass is the main source of gravity in the nature (which is true with newton’s law)
First Person : According to khan academy lecture precession is boz of sun earth interaction
Second Person: interaction through Gravity…
Second Person: if newton’s law talks about Gravity, then it should explain… these interactions… why it fails?
First Person : Yes
Second Person: btw this is only for Mercury…
First Person : Y not
Second Person: Uranus and Neptune were discovered because of the power of Newton’s Law….
Second Person: what I am trying to say is that, gravity is not just the way Newton’s Law define. It may be true at some places but not at all places… and Newton’s law does not give full picture of it… So it is not a universal law (that is why I said “Universal Law” should not be restricted to just one law)
First Person : G is called universal constant … law is valid at every place
Second Person: humm,
Second Person: What is the source of G?
First Person: Cavendish experiment proof
Second Person: Newton’s law is not just G. It is a constant number that is present in our universe. But the value of G does not talk about the nature of gravity… that is spoken by other parameters in the newtons law… which is not always true at all points in the space…
First Person : Do u mean (M)(m)/ r square. Is not true at certain places ?
Second Person: Yes, it is nearly true but not always… Once C. Sivram sir took a beautiful class in M.Sc.
Second Person: That is why we have General Theory of Relativity…
Second Person: Combination of both Newton’s Law and GR could be universal (if we really need to use this word)….
First Person: I’m stunned. .. no words
Second Person: Yes, that is Nature!!
First Person : Students ge hogi Newton’s law universal alla antha helbeka
Second Person: Interesting part is Kepler defines the motion of planet without using Gravity…. It perfectly fits.. Later newton comes and gives gravitational concept… Kepler did not even know about this Gravity.
Second Person: In fact nothing is universal!! anta ankondiddini… (In fact, I think nothing is universal)
Third Person : Even i think so…that, no law is universal “YET”
Second Person: Yet….? What next?
Third Person : May be in future we can get a universal law…
Second Person: Yes…
So, what is your thoughts on it? Reply to this article.
I mean ‘YoU(r)’niversal Law!!
Viswa Keerthy S