[talanum1 (OP)]

The mechanism enforcing the laws of Physics must be bigger than an electron since it doesn't recognise that a Cooper-pair of electrons is not a Boson. If it was smaller it would have recognised that the "Boson" is really made of two Ferimons. However: quarks are smaller than electrons in which case: how does this same mechanism recognise quarks to enforce their Laws?

[Kryptid]

I don't think it makes much sense to say that a mechanism has a size.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Then you are not thinking in physical terms.

[Kryptid]

Mechanisms are abstract concepts. There is no "size" involved. What is the size of tornadogenesis? What is the size of evolution by natural selection? What is the size of global warming?

[talanum1 (OP)]

Mechanisms are abstract concepts. There is no "size" involved. What is the size of tornadogenesis? What is the size of evolution by natural selection? What is the size of global warming?

Those are abstract examples. I am thinking of mechanisms as physical objects, made of the structure of spacetime and endowed with information. It can have size. The mechanisms must be able to read and write and make decisions (i.e. be programmed).

Where do your abstract mechanisms live?

[jeffreyH]

A clock has a mechanism and has a size. This is a physical system and not a concept.

[Bored chemist]

"What is the size of the mechanism enforcing the Laws of Physics?"
The same size as Thursday.

[talanum1 (OP)]

You keep insisting that the mechanism is an abstract concept. In which case it lives in people's minds. In which case it cannot preform an action in a laboratory with no people in it and hardly with no people close enough to interact with the experiment. The notion is vague.

My way is concrete and definite, though it predicts a new particle.

[Bored chemist]

My way is concrete and definite

Not really.
Plenty of your stuff simply means nothing.

[jeffreyH]

My way is concrete and definite, though it predicts a new particle.

Maybe you should write all your ideas in a notebook, then find some concrete and bury them under it.

[Bored chemist]

The mechanism enforcing the laws of Physics must be bigger than an electron since it doesn't recognise that a Cooper-pair of electrons is not a Boson. If it was smaller it would have recognised that the "Boson" is really made of two Ferimons. However: quarks are smaller than electrons in which case: how does this same mechanism recognise quarks to enforce their Laws?

The obvious answer is that it's big.
Very big.

[Kryptid]

A clock has a mechanism and has a size. This is a physical system and not a concept.

Well in that case, yes.

Those are abstract examples.

That was exactly my point.

I am thinking of mechanisms as physical objects, made of the structure of spacetime and endowed with information. It can have size. The mechanisms must be able to read and write and make decisions (i.e. be programmed).

So what experiment could be used to test this idea?

Where do your abstract mechanisms live?

"Where" would only be applicable if they were objects.

You keep insisting that the mechanism is an abstract concept. In which case it lives in people's minds. In which case it cannot preform an action in a laboratory with no people in it and hardly with no people close enough to interact with the experiment.

Not hardly. Day and night are abstract concepts, but they very much existed before humans evolved.

[talanum1 (OP)]

So what experiment could be used to test this idea?

Any experiment shows the laws of physics are enforced.

A vague, abstract concept cannot enforce the laws of physics. You have to see that.

Not hardly. Day and night are abstract concepts

Day and night are concrete, only the names are concepts.

[Bored chemist]

Any experiment shows the laws of physics are enforced.

True but irrelevant to the question, which I presume you can't answer.

[Kryptid]

A vague, abstract concept cannot enforce the laws of physics. You have to see that.

Again, what experiment could verify this claim?

Day and night are concrete

If that's the case, can you put them in a jar?

[talanum1 (OP)]

Again, what experiment could verify this claim?

If you could make a hole in space, the laws of physics would be violated in the hole.

If that's the case, can you put them in a jar?

No, but their cause is physical: the sun.

[Kryptid]

If you could make a hole in space, the laws of physics would be violated in the hole.

How are you defining a "hole in space"? Are you talking about a wormhole?

No, but their cause is physical: the sun.

So what is the size of day and night?

[Bored chemist]

If you could make a hole in space, the laws of physics would be violated in the hole.

Do you realise that saying that is like saying " if we could do magic, then magic things could be done"?

[evan_au]

the (Cooper Pair) "Boson" is really made of two Ferimons. However: quarks are smaller than electrons in which case: how does this same mechanism recognise quarks to enforce their Laws?

I think you are asking about the strength and range of the forces of physics?
- There are four fundamental forces that are recognized in physics today

The strong nuclear force that holds quarks together are so strong that they effectively confine the quarks to within the diameter of a proton or neutron.
- It takes extremely high energies to separate these quarks (think of the Large Hadron Collider)

The electromagnetic force that holds atoms together is weaker. It is possible to separate electrons and protons in chemical reactions (like acids), at room temperature.

My simplistic understanding of Cooper pairs (one of the mechanisms of superconductivity) is that it is a coupling of electromagnetic fields with phonons (sound waves) in the superconducting material. This force is extremely weak, and the phonons are overwhelmed by temperatures much above absolute zero.

PS: Phonons are not considered one of the four fundamental forces, but rather a result of the electromagnetic field holding atoms together in a crystal.
- The "other" force is the Weak Nuclear Force

[talanum1 (OP)]

How are you defining a "hole in space"? Are you talking about a wormhole?

No a hole such that there is no spacetime or anything else in the hole: a boundary to the Universe.

So what is the size of day and night?

12 hours. You keep implying the mechanism is abstract. In such a case it lives in Plato's forms realm. This is not thinking in terms of physical processes