Do the laws of nature evolve with the cosmos?

[UltraBudgie]

Well, do they? Probably not every day. It is a little strange that the one eternal invariant thing in creation is the "laws of physics".

Chat GPT actually gave an excellent summary, so I will quote it here:

 The question of whether the laws of nature evolve with the cosmos is a profound one that touches on both physics and philosophy. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Constancy of Physical Laws: Traditionally, the laws of physics, such as the laws of thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and gravity, are considered to be universal and constant throughout time and space. This means that they do not change as the universe evolves.
   
2. Cosmological Evolution: While the laws themselves may be constant, the conditions of the universe change over time. For example, the early universe was in a hot, dense state, and as it expanded and cooled, different physical phenomena became dominant (e.g., the formation of atoms, stars, and galaxies).
   
3. Theories of Change: Some theoretical frameworks, such as those in cosmology and quantum gravity, suggest that under certain conditions, the fundamental constants of nature might vary. For instance, some models propose that constants like the speed of light or gravitational constant could change over cosmological timescales, although there is currently no experimental evidence to support this.
   
4. Philosophical Implications: The idea that laws could evolve raises philosophical questions about the nature of reality and our understanding of the universe. If laws can change, it challenges the notion of a fixed, objective reality governed by immutable laws.
   
5. Current Scientific Consensus: As of now, the prevailing view in physics is that the fundamental laws of nature are invariant. However, research in theoretical physics continues to explore the implications of a dynamic universe, and future discoveries may provide new insights.
   

In summary, while the laws of nature are generally considered constant, the evolving conditions of the cosmos can lead to different manifestations of these laws. The exploration of whether the laws themselves can change remains an open question in modern physics.

 
Here is an interesting video discussion:

Rupert Sheldrake and Mark Vernon discuss the impact on science of the Elizabethan lawyer, Francis Bacon. His New Instrument of Thought, or Novum Organum, put laws at the centre of science and was intended as an upgrade on assumptions developed by Aristotle. But does the existence of mind-like laws of nature, somehow acting on otherwise mindless matter, even make sense? What difference is made by insights subsequent to Baconian philosophy, such as the discovery of evolution or the sense that the natural world is not machine-like but behaves like an organism? Could the laws of nature be more like habits? And what about the existence of miracles, the purposes of organisms, and the extraordinary fecundity of creativity?

I find the idea of different regions of the universe having different subtle changes to the "laws" of physics to be fascinating. I think reality is much more malleable that most empiricists are comfortable admitting. But, where is the evidence? Wasn't there something from NASA a few years ago about the gravitational constant potentially changing at some distance from the solar system?

It would be fun to discover a fifth force, perhaps influenced by the presence of dark matter.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

That's why theoretical physics is so funny.

It can go on forever. 

"I came up with this new brilliant cosmological theory. It works."

"But this variable here, isn't that suppose to be a vacuum field?"

"But my theory allows for a slight variance in the speed of light in vacuum!" 

"You're assuming a high density in the vacuum, but expansion shows a value 120 powers lower, how you respond to that?"

"Extra dimensions!"

"Wait. You can't use both a vacuum genesis model and a string model simultaneously, can you?" 

"Sure you can, if you divide the universe into separate stages of genesis where the laws of physics are different for each stage. Like singularity, unified plasma, and broken symmetry!" 

"Now you're just trying to solve a problem by adding unnecessary bullshit. Its becoming contrived, just a little?"

What I would say from my idiot chair. 

"What if it is like being two dots on an expanding balloon and it just appears like the other dot is moving away exponentially faster because of expansion plus stretching of space combines to a total faster than the apparent speed of light?

What if we are just making up a bunch of unnecessary crap for our ignorance to the universe's expanding nature?"

And then they'd tell me i just dont understand it, which is probably true. 

But to wax psychobabble, if you look in any direction you see cosmic microwave background radiation and measure no curvature to space.

What if its just the right balance point where expansion energy density of expansion and speed of light are balanced and come back with the appearance of Euclidian geometry. 

I don't think it's an idiot misconception. Like what if the rate the universal balloon blows up and the speed of light form an illusion of being flat.

But I'm not gonna do math for this so I'll just sound like an armchair pseudoscientist instead. I'm sure I'm wrong in many ways.

[Sirius]

If you chain a dog long enough you can remove it and it will stop running where the chain used to end

[UltraBudgie]

so to merge the two metaphors, the laws of physics are like a dog chasing a car it can never catch?

they keep changing and running and moving forward but so does the car, so the distance seems to be invariant?

or are we the car or the dog and physics only evolves if we do? the chain is our complacency?

wait who's driving the car???

this is the peril of early morning metaphor. i need coffee.

[UltraBudgie]

What I would say from my idiot chair.

...And then they'd tell me i just dont understand it, which is probably true.

...But I'm not gonna do math for this so I'll just sound like an armchair pseudoscientist instead. I'm sure I'm wrong in many ways.

stop being humble just because you're not being paid. armchair pseudoscientists are the best. this is gold.

But to wax psychobabble, if you look in any direction you see cosmic microwave background radiation and measure no curvature to space.

What if its just the right balance point where expansion energy density of expansion and speed of light are balanced and come back with the appearance of Euclidian geometry. 

I don't think it's an idiot misconception. Like what if the rate the universal balloon blows up and the speed of light form an illusion of being flat.

this makes sense that what we see in the scope of our observations as constant can in fact be the result of two opposing underlying dynamics, one expanding and the other contracting, perhaps not in perfect symmetry. this is a plot point in the most recent bobiverse book, a series i should probably recommend in the book thread, so it is probably true.

[Sirius]

But I'm not gonna do math for this so I'll just sound like an armchair pseudoscientist instead. I'm sure I'm wrong in many ways.

No, your usually right.  The answers are not found when looking through the microscope or telescope, you see but do not perceive 

Walking is controlled falling, you do not learn the actions, you don't even "know" about tendons, bones and muscles when you start. After you learn about all the components, you still don't think about it, all you have to do is breathe

You won't learn the worlds history from studying Atlantis for 20 years, you learn even less from looking at a brick and then we ask an atom about the universe

(1:11)  the narrator walks through time, everything he describes happens now, here. there is nothing else. a goddess is standing right in front of you



I ask a child how old they are, 11, I ask you how old you are? Who is right? Did the universe exist before you where born, will it exist when you die?

edit:wtf brain shorting out, fixed

[andy06shake]

Most physicists assume the laws of nature are fixed and timeless.

Unchanging rules that apply uniformly across the universe.

There are, however, some theories that suggest the laws could evolve, especially in cosmological models like Lee Smolin’s.

Or certain string theory landscapes.

The fact is, we cannot rule out the possibility, but observations thus far have not confirmed any changes in the constants as far as I'm aware. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmologic..._selection

[UltraBudgie]

Most physicists assume the laws of nature are fixed and timeless.

Unchanging rules that apply uniformly across the universe.

There are, however, some theories that suggest the laws could evolve, especially in cosmological models like Lee Smolin’s.

Or certain string theory landscapes.

The fact is, we cannot rule out the possibility, but observations thus far have not confirmed any changes in the constants as far as I'm aware. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmologic..._selection

it is almost a necessary assumption for science! hopefully true, but perhaps the best we can hope for is that it is usefully true, that rules apply uniformly. i guess, except when they don't! i think the term for that is an "outside context problem". but i suppose science is doing okay so far, with all the smashing success it's had.

but as to observations confirming, there is also the assumption of an absolute objective viewpoint at which changes can be viewed from. like, if everything was shrinking, including our rulers, how would we know? there is funny circularism where units used to measure the speed of light (time and distance) are defined by calibrations that aren't definitively proven to be independent of the speed of light itself. so perhaps the constants could change and we wouldn't know?

also weirdness about reality "catching up" to theorizing, and matching the results we logically expect. this is somehow always a subjective and unprovable observation, but seems to occur over and over. maybe just human nature. but that kind of fits the simulation hypothesis or mental/physical holomorphic theories, too.

funny:




how's the string stuff work?

[quintessentone]

Aren't they grappling with the locally known physics of our space/time/gravity but really can't get a handle on the larger nature of the cosmos where forces may behave in ways never to be realized? Theorized, perhaps...I wonder.

ETA for UB:

If we believe that the universe is expanding as if it were an expanding balloon, would it not stand to reason that universal natural physics would change some how as well?

"Yes, it’s true. Our closest celestial companion, the Moon, is retreating—drifting a tiny bit farther from Earth with every passing year. It’s not racing off into the void at rocket speed, but the movement is steady, measurable, and scientifically undeniable. The implications of this gradual retreat are profound, touching everything from the length of Earth’s day to the stability of our planet’s tilt."

Is the Moon Really Moving Away from Earth?

[Sirius]

atoms are created, where do they come from? What is magnetic field? where does it come from? what is an electric field, where does it come from? Do you know what they look like, do you really though? Did you see it in 2D or 3D? why can't we see it all the time?
 



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_packing

In geometry, a sphere packing is an arrangement of non-overlapping spheres within a containing space. The spheres considered are usually all of identical size, and the space is usually three-dimensional Euclidean space. However, sphere packing problems can be generalised to consider unequal spheres, spaces of other dimensions (where the problem becomes circle packing in two dimensions, or hypersphere packing in higher dimensions) or to non-Euclidean spaces such as hyperbolic space.

Atoms are created, what do we do? we get a microscope and look for the creator 

Monkey sees the logs burning, but has no idea how it started