Are physics laws eternal or do they evolve?

[Martin]

This question has been discussed in (Philosophy of Science) professional journals. It is part of a more general topic: the Nature of Physical Law.

 

I'm using the lightbulb post-icon as a tag on this thread to indicate it has both general physics and philosophy content.

 

Here is suggested reading if you want to respond---don't worry its very short and quick to read. This is a kind of thread prerequisite. Read this first before you post:

 

http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/timevarying06.ppt

===========================

 

Those are the powerpoint slides from a talk. Very condensed. If your computer doesn't like the PPT file for some reason, let me know and I'll get some other links. There are a couple of video lectures on this topic (physics laws evolving in time) and some PDF files.

[fredrik]

One opinion:

 

Smolin raises many great points in that powerpoint. If it doesn't make sense, read it until it does

 

I've expressed my personal opinon on this before, but I'll add it to this thread again.

 

I have come to a similar evolutionary escape as Smolin, so my opinion is that the notion of eternal makes little sense. There are I think many angles to argue towards this. Smolin raises many good points IMO.

 

To mention some keys Smolin mentions, to the problem without diverging into personal opinons too much I think some are

 

- If the laws are evolving, isn't there a deeper law relative to which they evolve?

 

- Paradoxes of unification and symmetry. What exactly is the relational meaning of "distinction without difference".

 

- Questions of consistency, completeness and uniqueness

 

I think one thing that prevents progress, is the obsession with perfection, or perfect consistency. IMO, this problem is exactly what motivates the evolutionary escape. This lack of perfection, is the drive of the evolution. It's ony of my personal motivations: Any attempt of analysis of mine, has resulted in that one question is replaced by another one, and you basically end up in a processing loop. Any attempt to establish a finite, durable conclusion has failed. Then I realised that this is not a problem, rather it's exactly the point. Because the world isn't static in the first place, why expect our understanding of it to be static?

 

I associated to this before, but recall the story of "Einsteins blunder". He was looking for a static universe. Now the story is vaugely analogous, applied to the logic of reasoning, and theory building.

 

Is the (at least so far) failure to nail the universal eternal complete, consistent laws telling is somethng? IMHO it does.

 

/Fredrik

[swansont]

Two objections:

 

1. Saying that GR can't account for the CMB and proposing that it's potentially solved by a quantum theory does not imply laws have been changing over time. This is completely analogous to QM vs classical in mechanics and electrodynamics. Classical laws did not change as a result of discovering QM.

 

2. Saying that laws change, but these changes follow laws just moves the problem back one level.

[fredrik]

2. Saying that laws change, but these changes follow laws just moves the problem back one level.

 

I agree completely.

I listed that as a point of issue, not as a statement of mine.

 

To give my escape to this: there is a level in the hierarchy of construction, where the evolution, has not distinguishable pattern - ie it's "random" from the point of view of the observer, which also means that the observer doesn't see this as a problem, because I think that the evolution of law goes hand in hand with the evolution of observers (and matter), thus at some point the observer is himself a fluctuation. So the question becomes, what possible laws, can an observer "see" that is himself a small random fluctuation?

 

All other higher constructs, the does provide a law of the evolving law are, I picture, emergent, from a the self-organised chaos.

 

I think the predictions that SHOULD come out of this idea when matured, is expectations on the observers/particles and systems that does populate the universe, and this is in itself a manifestation of what laws that populate the universe since if we maintain the observable ideal, only "observable laws" are under discussion. Therefore, the population of the universe constitutes a population of "opinion" of law, which by self-reinforcements becomes the law.

 

So to me, the quest here, is to better describe exactly this self-organisation. And see if we can produce predictions. The ultimate payoff would I think be if arguments can be shown that the laws we see, and the matter we see, are in line with expectations of such self-organisation.

 

I think that to hope that some theory will predict everything perfectly isn't going to happen, but perhaps we can find the best achievable way to ask new questions, so that even when we are wrong we make to the best of our logic, "probable progress".

 

I don't think anything more than that is possible.

 

/Fredrik

[Baby Astronaut]

Any attempt to establish a finite, durable conclusion has failed. Then I realised that this is not a problem, rather it's exactly the point. Because the world isn't static in the first place, why expect our understanding of it to be static?

I'm with you there. However, one additional point to consider: nature is self-balancing, so why not expect our approaches to need balance?

 

By that I mean, seeking perfection is necessary and so is accepting that we'll never find the holy grail, but to each his own. And indeed it is balanced: the number of people who do one, the other, or both are noticeably mixed.

 

Back to your point, though. I've noticed whenever we stumble upon a discovery, rather than it being a final resting stop on the path of knowledge, it's merely a plateau that shows yet untold heights of knowledge to reach. I've come to accept it'll always be like this, and it's an exciting thought really, but it doesn't stop me from looking for that holy grail either. Knowing your part in the scheme of things is not always a reason to stop what you're doing, but it's good to take a break now and then along the journey and enjoy it all too.

 

To answer the OP, I think a few laws are eternal within a given boundary (the currently observable universe), and some might be upfaced eventually.

Edited December 27, 2008 by Baby Astronaut
important grammar correction

[fredrik]

Knowing your part in the scheme of things is not always a reason to stop what you're doing

 

I agree. I do by no means suggest the above as a way of surrendering. On the contrary am I suggesting that the very insight of this, with make the search more efficient

 

but it doesn't stop me from looking for that holy grail either

 

It's like they say, the journey is the goal. It's matter of self-preservation IMO. I picture it's conceptually the reason why things acquire stability. The are constantly seeking improvement. If you live in an enviroment like this, you realise that the only way to maintain "status quo" is to keep striving. What we see is more I think like meta-stable steady states.

 

/Fredrik

[Baby Astronaut]

I agree. I do by no means suggest the above as a way of surrendering.

I didn't mean to imply...

 

On the contrary am I suggesting that the very insight of this, with make the search more efficient

So true. You already have your eyes on the certainty of a next level rather than expecting to stop when you reach the goal. Thus you're better prepared/equipped.

Edited December 27, 2008 by Baby Astronaut
clarified a word

[gcol]

I like the journey analogy. I have used it before. But unfortunately(?) many travellers say this, but sooner or later find a comfortable resting place that they make into a cosy home and invite everybody in. Then they become upset when the house guests become restless and move on, and new travellers give only a passing glance and pass by.

 

Many scientists are like this. They are after all only human. They reach their comfort level and seem to resent others travelling past and ignoring them. They should not feel obligated to move on, just feel satisfied that they have done their bit and leave the continuing journey to fresh legs.

 

I particularly liked Smolin's reference to past, present and future universes, as I find myself becoming more and more attached to the various cyclic universe theories in which each cycle can have different physical constants, and time is therefore not invariant. I also agree that the search for the T.O.E. may be fools gold, or if you prefer, the philosophers stone.

Edited December 27, 2008 by gcol