question: What is the nature of the laws of physics? Are they independent from everything and always are the same? Or are they dependent on matter?
comment: The laws appear to be dependent on the structure of the Universe, particularly the quantum fields that spread across spacetime. Almost all the laws work equally well for matter and anti-matter, if that's your second question. Without matter, it's hard to demonstrate properties like mass and charge, but the laws are still the same (except the number of particles you're measuring is zero and zero times many things isn't interesting).
passages: According to a positivist view, when compared to pre-modern accounts of causality, laws of nature replace the need for divine causality on the one hand, and accounts such as Plato's theory of forms on the other.
   These general laws, in other words, replace thinking about "specific" "laws", for example ""human" nature". In modern science, human nature is part of the same general scheme of cause and effect, obeying the same general laws, as all other things. The above-mentioned difference between accidental and substantial properties, and indeed knowledge and opinion, also disappear within this new approach that aimed to avoid metaphysics.
   In 1993, Stephen R. Gould, then a financial training consultant, writing in "New Scientist", said that "... these seemingly nonsensical phenomena can be described by logical laws similar to those in our world. Nonsensical events are by no means limited to the Looniverse. Laws that govern our own Universe often seem contrary to common sense." This theme is described by Alan Cholodenko in his article, "The Nutty Universe of Animation".
  
  In a Garfield animated short entitled "Secrets of the Animated Cartoon", the characters Orson and Wade give demonstrations of different laws of the cartoons and show humorous examples of them.
   The observation that there are underlying regularities in nature dates from prehistoric times, since the recognition of cause-and-effect relationships is an implicit recognition that there are laws of nature. The recognition of such regularities as independent scientific laws "per se", though, was limited by their entanglement in animism, and by the attribution of many effects that do not have readily obvious causes—such as meteorological, astronomical and biological phenomena—to the actions of various gods, spirits, supernatural beings, etc. Observation and speculation about nature were intimately bound up with metaphysics and morality.
   Asimov took varying positions on whether the Laws were optional: although in his first writings they were simply carefully engineered safeguards, in later stories Asimov stated that they were an inalienable part of the mathematical foundation underlying the positronic brain. Without the basic theory of the Three Laws the fictional scientists of Asimov's universe would be unable to design a workable brain unit. This is historically consistent: the occasions where roboticists modify the Laws generally occur early within the stories' chronology and at a time when there is less existing work to be re-done. In "Little Lost Robot" Susan Calvin considers modifying the Laws to be a terrible idea, although possible, while centuries later Dr. Gerrigel in "The Caves of Steel" believes it to be impossible.
   The precise formulation of what are now recognized as modern and valid statements of the laws of nature dates from the 17th century in Europe, with the beginning of accurate experimentation and development of advanced forms of mathematics. During this period, natural philosophers such as Isaac Newton were influenced by a religious view which held that God had instituted absolute, universal and immutable physical laws. In chapter 7 of "The World", René Descartes described "nature" as matter itself, unchanging as created by God, thus changes in parts "are to be attributed to nature. The rules according to which these changes take place I call the 'laws of nature'." The modern scientific method which took shape at this time (with Francis Bacon and Galileo) aimed at total separation of science from theology, with minimal speculation about metaphysics and ethics. Natural law in the political sense, conceived as universal (i.e., divorced from sectarian religion and accidents of place), was also elaborated in this period (by Grotius, Spinoza, and Hobbes, to name a few).
   At present, matter and energy are best understood in terms of the kinematics and interactions of elementary particles. To date, physics has reduced the laws governing the behavior and interaction of all known forms of matter and energy to a small set of fundamental laws and theories. A major goal of physics is to find the "common ground" that would unite all of these theories into one integrated theory of everything, of which all the other known laws would be special cases, and from which the behavior of all matter and energy could be derived (at least in principle).
   In physics, motion of massive bodies is described through two related sets of laws of mechanics. Motions of all large-scale and familiar objects in the universe (such as cars, projectiles, planets, cells, and humans) are described by classical mechanics, whereas the motion of very small atomic and sub-atomic objects is described by quantum mechanics. Historically, Newton and Euler formulated three laws of classical mechanics:
  
  Section::::Laws of motion.:Classical mechanics.
   In 1876, American civil engineer Richard Sears McCulloh, in his "Treatise on the Mechanical Theory of Heat and its Application to the Steam-Engine", which was an early thermodynamics textbook, states, after speaking about the laws of the physical world, that "there are none that are established on a firmer basis than the two general propositions of Joule and Carnot; which constitute the fundamental laws of our subject." McCulloch then goes on to show that these two laws may be combined in a single expression as follows:
  
  where
   The universe in which the plot regularly takes place is called the Einstein Universe (and occasionally "Meekorah"). Its laws are mostly identical to those of our real universe. Newer theories about dark matter and dark energy are currently not used in the series, and sometimes the laws of nature follow old theories that have been disproven—to protect the plot.
   Equations describing fluid flow in various situations can be derived, using the above classical equations of motion and often conservation of mass, energy and momentum. Some elementary examples follow.
  
  BULLET::::- Archimedes' principle
  
  BULLET::::- Bernoulli's principle
  
  BULLET::::- Poiseuille's law
  
  BULLET::::- Stokes's law
  
  BULLET::::- Navier–Stokes equations
  
  BULLET::::- Faxén's law
  
  Section::::Laws of physics.:Laws of gravitation and relativity.
  
  Some of the more famous laws of nature are found in Isaac Newton's theories of (now) classical mechanics, presented in his "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica", and in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. 
  
  Section::::Laws of physics.:Laws of gravitation and relativity.:Modern laws.
  
  BULLET::::- Special relativity
   The general laws of motion are expressed as extensions of Newton's Laws
  
  First Law: "Every corpuscle in the conceptual model of the universe must be conceived as moving with due regard to the presence of every other corpuscle, although for very distant corpuscles the regard paid is extremely small as compared with that paid to immediate neighbours."
  
  Second Law: "Principle of Inertia"
  
  Third Law: "Mutual Acceleration is determined by Relative Position"
   Section::::Overview.
  
  A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing causal relationships (such as those implied by laws) from principles that arise due to constant conjunction.
   There is ongoing debate in the philosophy of science concerning "ceteris paribus" statements. On the logical empiricist view, fundamental physics tends to state universal laws, whereas other sciences, such as biology, psychology, and economics, tend to state laws that hold true in normal conditions but have exceptions: "ceteris paribus" laws (cp laws). The focus on universal laws is a criterion distinguishing fundamental physics as fundamental, whereas cp laws are predominant in most other sciences as special sciences, whose laws hold in special cases. This distinction assumes a logical empiricist view of science. It does not readily apply in a mechanistic understanding of scientific discovery. There is reasonable disagreement as to whether mechanisms or laws are the appropriate model, though mechanisms are the favored method.
   For example, physical laws such as the law of gravity or scientific laws attempt to describe the fundamental nature of the universe itself. Laws of mathematics and logic describe the nature of rational thought and inference (Kant's transcendental idealism, and differently G. Spencer-Brown's work "Laws of Form", was precisely a determination of the "a priori" laws governing human thought before any interaction whatsoever with experience).
   Within most fields of study, and in science in particular, the elevation of some principle of that field to the status of law usually takes place after a very long time during which the principle is used and tested and verified; though in some fields of study such laws are simply postulated as a foundation and assumed. Mathematical laws are somewhere in between: they are often arbitrary and unproven in themselves, but they are sometimes judged by how useful they are in making predictions about the real world. However, they ultimately rely on arbitrary axioms. 
   Physics and chemistry may overlap when the system under study involves matter composed of electrons and nuclei made of protons and neutrons. On the other hand, chemistry is not concerned with other forms of matter such as quarks, mu and tau leptons and dark matter.
   These three laws hold to a good approximation for macroscopic objects under everyday conditions. However, Newton's laws (combined with universal gravitation and classical electrodynamics) are inappropriate for use in certain circumstances, most notably at very small scales, at very high speeds, or in very strong gravitational fields. Therefore, the laws cannot be used to explain phenomena such as conduction of electricity in a semiconductor, optical properties of substances, errors in non-relativistically corrected GPS systems and superconductivity. Explanation of these phenomena requires more sophisticated physical theories, including general relativity and quantum field theory.
   References to "condensed" state can be traced to earlier sources. For example, in the introduction to his 1947 book "Kinetic Theory of Liquids", Yakov Frenkel proposed that "The kinetic theory of liquids must accordingly be developed as a generalization and extension of the kinetic theory of solid bodies. As a matter of fact, it would be more correct to unify them under the title of 'condensed bodies'".
  
  Section::::History of classical physics.
  
  Section::::History of classical physics.:Classical physics.
   expressed this view on occasions. Following this view, we may reasonably hope for "a" theory of everything which self-consistently incorporates all currently known forces, but we should not expect it to be the final answer.
  
  On the other hand, it is often claimed that, despite the apparently ever-increasing complexity of the mathematics of each new theory, in a deep sense associated with their underlying gauge symmetry and the number of dimensionless physical constants, the theories are becoming simpler. If this is the case, the process of simplification cannot continue indefinitely.
  
  Section::::Arguments against.:Lack of fundamental laws.
   Laws of science or scientific laws are statements that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena. A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experiments or observations that describe some aspect of the natural world. The term "law" has diverse usage in many cases (approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow) across all fields of natural science (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, etc.). Laws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented.
   As Bacon knew, the term "laws of nature" was one taken from medieval Aristotelianism. St Thomas of Aquinas for example, defined law so that nature really was legislated to consciously achieve aims, like human law: "an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community and promulgated". In contrast, roughly contemporary with Bacon, Hugo Grotius described the law of nature as "a rule that [can] be deduced from fixed principles by a sure process of reasoning". And later still, Montesquieu was even further from the original legal metaphor, describing laws vaguely as "the necessary relations deriving from the nature of things".
   Hart identifies three such important differences: content, origin, and range. In terms of content, not all laws are imperative or coercive. Some are facilitative, allowing us to create contracts and other legal relations.
   In the late 17th century, Isaac Newton's description of the long-distance force of gravity implied that not all forces in nature result from things coming into contact. Newton's work in his "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" dealt with this in a further example of unification, in this case unifying Galileo's work on terrestrial gravity, Kepler's laws of planetary motion and the phenomenon of tides by explaining these apparent actions at a distance under one single law: the law of universal gravitation.
   Unlike "law fundamentalists", some philosophers are "law pluralists": they question what it means to have a law of physics. One example is the "Best Standards Analysis", which says that the laws are only useful ways to summarize all past events, rather than there being metaphysically "pushy" entities (this route still brings one into conflict with the idea of free will). Some law pluralists further believe there are simply no laws of physics. The mathematical universe hypothesis suggests that there are other universes in which the laws of physics and fundamental constants are different. Andreas Albrecht of Imperial College in London called it a "provocative" solution to one of the central problems facing physics. Although he "wouldn't dare" go so far as to say he believes it, he noted that "it's actually quite difficult to construct a theory where everything we see is all there is".
  