Do you ever give up on things because of natural laws?

ocalhoun

I wonder how many times someone has given up an invention or idea they were thinking about because it would violate a 'natural law'...

It is a sure thing that most of what we consider to be natural laws have been very well proven, but does that necessarily mean that these laws are true in absolutely every situation? Perhaps the reason that these laws are not disproven has something to do with the fact that they are so well established that they dissuade anyone from trying to disprove them.

I just see a danger in assuming these various laws are true to the point that anyone who attempts to prove them wrong is automatically ridiculed. That could lead to stifling important new ideas for the sake of maintaining these possibly flawed laws.

For example: perhaps you think of a marvelous device that would output more energy than is put into it, and you think: this is great! an infinite source of energy!, but then you think: Oh, wait... That would violate the laws of thermodynamics, so its impossible... oh well, too bad.
But suppose you convinced yourself that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong or you never knew of them in the first place: in that case what would happen any time you mentioned your idea to anyone else? You'd be condescended to if you were not an expert, and if you were an expert, you'd be a laughingstock.

But then, what if your idea really would have worked?

Sikon

Perhaps the most absolute rule is that nothing will contradict the great body of past experimental evidence. For example, relativity has modified Newtonian physics, but it did so without contradicting the countless tests of Newtonian physics at speeds small compared to the speed of light. It contradicted Newtonian physics in an area not well tested before, particles at speeds close to lightspeed.

I wouldn't worry much about working "free energy" concepts being stifled. If one actually worked as well as some claim, the inventor wouldn't even have to directly convince people it works. For example, he could just start selling electricity back to the grid like is done with some solar power, use the money to build more to make more money, and so on. As another random example, he could make and sell portable lanterns advertising long battery life, letting the public eventually notice they never actually need battery replacement. That doesn't happen because the "free energy" devices don't really work as claimed.

The bulk of "free energy" device ideas are just repeats of concepts that have been proposed, tested, and failed by many people decade after decade, contradicting the vast body of past experimental evidence. If a current scientific law is broken someday, it will be at the weird boundaries of knowledge, where few tests have yet been done, not with pedestrian equipment.

So one can say one's idea must be extraordinarily unique and unusual, or else there is nothing new under the sun.

Indi

i know that it is a commonly held belief that the scientific community consists of a bunch of Statlers and Waldorfs just sitting around all day patting each other's backs and waiting for mavericks to walk in with new ideas so they can heckle them. There is some truth to this in that the scientific community is highly intolerant of Barnumesque antics by people trying to get their ideas considered seriously. When ideas are presented showing the proper respect for the mechanisms that are in place to properly consider and analyse these ideas for accuracy, that is, by peer-reviewed journals, those ideas are welcomed with open arms. When ideas are first presented by press conference, they are less warm to considering them.

If you have an idea that you believe violates a law of physics, you should consider very carefully what is going on. Your first question should be whether or not it violates the law at all; there may be something else going on (this is the case for most of the modern "free energy" devices, possibly including Fleischmann and Pons cold fusion). If it still appears to be violating the law, it may be that you've found a loophole - a case where the law does not actually apply, but that does not actually violate the law. Only if all of those possibilities have been considered and rejected should you even consider that you have shown a law to be invalid. To assume you've rewritten physics without taking extreme measures to warrant that assumption is idiotic. Unfortunately, that's exactly what most people who claim to have rewritten physics do.

Is it really so much to ask that if you're claiming to violate the sum of human physical knowledge, you should be required to perform extensive efforts to prove that that's what you've really done?

DoctorBeaver

There are various "laws" that are merely surmised rather than having actually been proven and these are where you get into a grey area. Take the example of cold fusion. It has been ridiculed for years because very few experiments managed to reproduce it. Those who claimed to have done so had accusations of incompetence or even fraud hurled at them. But all of a sudden many sceptics are taking a different view because the US Navy now claims to have made it work.

I also think, and yes I am very cynical, that more than just a few inventions or experiments have been publicly ridiculed because goverment agencies want to keep them secret. Scientists are dissuaded from dabbling in these areas by threatened if not actual ridicule, or they see others being ridiculed and decide to direct their efforts into "safer" areas.

Nyizsa

Science is based on new ideas. Advance is made by people who think that "this may be forbidden by the law as we know, but what if...?"
A well-thought idea can suggest that laws are wrong, or partially true. A good experiment can prove it. To summarize, if I had an idea, I would pay the time and effort to develop it in my spare time - but I wouldn't put my life on it.

And thank you for this link: