The nature and history of physics.

[AndresKiani]

Does the nature of what we call the laws of "physics" have a history?

 

For example in biology we talk about how proteins evolved into a macromolecule, into an organism unit or simple cell, into a complex cell or more complex prokaryote, into a multicellular organism and such..

 

In chemistry obviously we talk about how matter became massive and how massive particles started evolving out of the initial hydrogen, helium, and the reactions that have generated all that we see before us.

 

But for some reason people think that the laws of physics or the nature of physics have always and will forever be constant.. what if they weren't and are not static?

Edited December 13, 2014 by AndresKiani

[Robittybob1]

Does the nature of what we call the laws of "physics" have a history?

 

For example in biology we talk about how proteins evolved into a macromolecule, into an organism unit or simple cell, into a complex cell or more complex prokaryote, into a multicellular organism and such..

 

In chemistry obviously we talk about how matter became massive and how massive particles started evolving out of the initial hydrogen, helium, and the reactions that have generated all that we see before us.

 

But for some reason people think that the laws of physics or the nature of physics has always and will forever be constant.. what if they weren't?

That must be an original thought. I have never heard about it before. Thanks.

[Ophiolite]

I think I disagree with your premise.

 

The biological examples you give are a matter of increasing complexity. I hope you are not suggesting that the fundamental laws governing the more complex organisms are different from those governing the simple ones. There is a hint of such a suggestion in your post.

 

We see exactly the same increases in complexity in physics. BB Theory has the four fundamental forces united at the outset. Particles can not, at first, exist. Temperature falls at some point to permit simple atoms to form. Nucleosynthesis builds more complex elements.

And all as a consequence of the same fundamental laws,constants and forces.

 

So I fail to see the distinction between physics and biology that you seem to be trying to make.

 

You then throw in what is - as written - a non-sequitur, asking if the laws of physics were always the same. (Hence my suspicion that you think the laws governing biology changed in some way.) This is not a new thought. A quick search should reveal a number of explorations of such an idea. Let me know what you find.

[AndresKiani]

 

So I fail to see the distinction between physics and biology that you seem to be trying to make.

 

You then throw in what is - as written - a non-sequitur, asking if the laws of physics were always the same. (Hence my suspicion that you think the laws governing biology changed in some way.) This is not a new thought. A quick search should reveal a number of explorations of such an idea. Let me know what you find.

 

Lol that dreaded biology, I'm not making a distinction between physics and that dreaded thing .

 

No my point here is much more fundamental than that. I'm not convinced that what I'm projecting here is actually the case (I'm sure it's far from it, though this is a forum and we discuss our most interesting thoughts on a forum). I'm actually much more comfortable with the laws of physics as constant entities or properties of this universe. However, what if they were not? We assume that even at the big bang or before the big bang these laws were just as constant as today, but what if there were more properties that don't exist today or what if the properties have changed along with the formation of the universe? How are we certain that these properties will be static in the future.

 

Just a thought I had, traditionally physcists have strived to fit upcoming models explaining our universe to well established models and to these constant properties. Though if we speak of a instance before the big bang or even close to the big bang neither time nor space make a lot of sense, what if the laws that we are so comfortable with today are not so well established or even different.

Edited December 13, 2014 by AndresKiani

[Bluemercury]

Does the nature of what we call the laws of "physics" have a history?

 

For example in biology we talk about how proteins evolved into a macromolecule, into an organism unit or simple cell, into a complex cell or more complex prokaryote, into a multicellular organism and such..

 

In chemistry obviously we talk about how matter became massive and how massive particles started evolving out of the initial hydrogen, helium, and the reactions that have generated all that we see before us.

 

But for some reason people think that the laws of physics or the nature of physics have always and will forever be constant.. what if they weren't and are not static?

Excellent question. in my humble opinion in the balance of probability i think. yes.

 

Lets face it if i was up to just math the universe would not still be expanding at an increasing rate, -which has been proven fact- our knowledge of physics is still evolving -fact-.

 

Questions like this will ensure that nothing is missed.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Bluemercury

[Ophiolite]

 

Lol that dreaded biology, I'm not making a distinction between that dreaded thing .

 

No my point here is much more fundamental than that. I'm not convinced that what I'm projecting here is actually the case (I'm sure it's far from it, though this is a forum and we discuss our most interesting thoughts on a forum). I'm actually much more comfortable with the laws of physics as constant entities or properties of this universe. However, what if they were not? We assume that even at the big bang or before the big bang these laws were just as constant as today, but what if there were more properties that don't exist today or what if the properties have changed along with the formation of the universe? How are we certain that these properties will be static in the future.

It would have been helpful if you had expressed it this way at the outset, without the misleading excursion into an invalid analogy.

 

Anyway, as noted, the idea of variable constants is not new. Dirac's name came to mind, but I can find no more than a citation. He considered the possibility, I think, that the gravitational constant was reducing with time. Some geologists used this to provide a mechanism for an expanding Earth - one of the contending hypotheses for orogenesis before plate tectonics won the day.

 

P. A. M. Dirac, Nature (London) 139 (1937)323.

 

However, there is a raft of papers on the overall concept running up to the present day. I haven't looked, but I'll be amazed if there is not a wikipedia article.

 

Edit: I'm not amazed: Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis

Edited December 13, 2014 by Ophiolite

[AndresKiani]

It would have been helpful if you had expressed it this way at the outset, without the misleading excursion into an invalid analogy.

 

Anyway, as noted, the idea of variable constants is not new. Dirac's name came to mind, but I can find no more than a citation. He considered the possibility, I think, that the gravitational constant was reducing with time. Some geologists used this to provide a mechanism for an expanding Earth - one of the contending hypotheses for orogenesis before plate tectonics won the day.

 

P. A. M. Dirac, Nature (London) 139 (1937)323.

 

However, there is a raft of papers on the overall concept running up to the present day. I haven't looked, but I'll be amazed if there is not a wikipedia article.

 

Edit: I'm not amazed: Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis

 

Well I'm not in competition with who had the idea, I care less. I'm not very egocentric. It amazes me how we humans can have such egos when our lifetime is but a mere nanosecond of a nanosecond of the universe's timeline.

My point here was to initiate a discussion, because this has interested me for the past several weeks.

Edited December 13, 2014 by AndresKiani

[Bluemercury]

Well I'm not ego centric s

 

 

Well I'm not in competition with who had the idea, I careless, not very egocentric. It amazes me how we humans can have such egos when our lifetime is but a mere nanosecond of a nanosecond of the universe's timeline.

My point was a discussion because it's interested me for the past several weeks.

Yes, the danger of getting out of the tree is that you may no longer see the forest, I would encourage you to keep your open mind. question everything because some will not.

[Ophiolite]

 

Well I'm not in competition with who had the idea, I care less. I'm not very egocentric..

Given that practically all scientific discoveries are based upon prior work I suggest that you should care.

 

I'm sorry if seeking to provide you with information about others who have thought along similar lines impinged upon whatever ego you do have.

[Robittybob1]

Given that practically all scientific discoveries are based upon prior work I suggest that you should care.

 

I'm sorry if seeking to provide you with information about others who have thought along similar lines impinged upon whatever ego you do have.

Evolving laws and constants? Force nearly equals mass times acceleration evolving into F=MA! that is new.

[Bluemercury]

I think we can all see were the ego problem is here,

 

Evolving laws and constants? Force nearly equals mass times acceleration evolving into F=MA! that is new.

What you have proposed is reasonable, i imagine to the majority. keep thinking

 

Yours sincerely Bluemercury.

[ajb]

I think trying to understand if fundamental rules like the already mentioned 'F= ma' have changed over time is not so easy to formulate and so test. What would it have been before?

 

The idea that the fundamental constants may vary in time is not new, again Dirac has already been mentioned.

 

Another point is that physics does depend on the scale you view it at. We have the fact that the gauge couplings of the standard model 'run' with energy. In particular if we include supersymmetry, then the gauge couplings of the theory become the same at about 10^16 GeV, which is known as the GUT scale. So for sure there is physics at this scale that we do not see yet.

 

Something like 10^–43 seconds to 10^–36 seconds after the Big Bang the Universe would have been governed by this GUT theory, all the non-gravitational physics I mean.

 

Now, there could still be some interesting new physics to be discovered in the so-called 'desert', which is the energy scale from the TeV (Higgs' scale) to this GUT scale. If something is discovered then there would presumably have been a time when these new theories governed the universe.

[MigL]

Further to what AJB has said, it is current thought that the TeV energy is where electroweak dissociation happened through a symmetry break. The mechanism that brought this about is the Higgs mechanism and the result is separate weak and EM forces as well as massive particles. It would have been a very different universe before that point, consisting only of massless particles moving at c.

 

The one I have fun considering is the gravitational constant.

If one were to have a Machian ( look it up ) point of view, one may consider the gravitational constant to be dependent on the mass-energy density of the observable universe. Which of course changes over time ...

[Robittybob1]

I think we can all see were the ego problem is here,

 

What you have proposed is reasonable, i imagine to the majority. keep thinking

 

Yours sincerely Bluemercury.

I was trying to comprehend what an evolving physical law might be like. Is it always through a coefficient? (coefficient = k) F=kMA

where in todays "evolved" world that coefficient is 1.

[Strange]

I'm actually much more comfortable with the laws of physics as constant entities or properties of this universe. However, what if they were not?

 

Not only has this been considered, as Ophiolite points out, but it has been (and is being) tested. There have been all sorts of experiments done to test if various fundamental constants have changed over time. For example, some researchers a few years ago, claimed to have found evidence that the fine structure constant varied slightly across the universe. As far as I know this has not been confirmed yet.

Lets face it if i was up to just math the universe would not still be expanding at an increasing rate, -which has been proven fact- our knowledge of physics is still evolving -fact-.

 

Questions like this will ensure that nothing is missed.

 

And the fact that evidence has been found that appears to show that expansion is accelerating (although it is definitely not a "proven fact") nicely demonstrates that scientists are very good at asking these questions, testing them and sometimes coming up with surprising answers. Science never rests on its laurels and assumes that something is "proven", it constantly looks for new ways of testing established ideas.

[Bluemercury]

 

And the fact that evidence has been found that appears to show that expansion is accelerating (although it is definitely not a "proven fact") nicely demonstrates that scientists are very good at asking these questions, testing them and sometimes coming up with surprising answers. Science never rests on its laurels and assumes that something is "proven", it constantly looks for new ways of testing established ideas.

Interesting, so which is it expanding or not, i thought all the tests from around the world confirmed it is, you cant have it both ways, with this type of uncertainty i do wonder if we really know anything for sure

 

1+1=2 is that a fact Yes/No

 

I have heard talk that the whole shammozzel could be a hologram. lets face the only fact we are ALL babes in the woods clutching at whatever our limited minds can take in. i think we need AI humans are flawed.

 

Now i have depressed myself.

 

Thanks

 

WARNING please take this with a sense of humor especially o.

Edited December 14, 2014 by Bluemercury

[Endy0816]

Interesting, so which is it expanding or not, i thought all the tests from around the world confirmed it is, you cant have it both ways, with this type of uncertainty i do wonder if we really know anything for sure

 

Basically even when there is a mountain of evidence and mathematical models in support we leave open the possibility that we might yet be wrong.

 

All the evidence says the Universe is expanding, but we admit that we could yet be wrong despite all that. That doesn't mean we are in fact wrong, just that we are open to the possibility.

 

You will have to look to Religion if you are seeking certainty. If you want something always open to change you look to Science.

 

 

1+1=2 is that a fact Yes/No

 

Depends. In typical everyday math, yes. Sometimes though it is really handy to instead place our upper limit at 1.

 

ex.

 

1+1=1

1+0=1

0+1=1

0+0=0

[Strange]

Interesting, so which is it expanding or not, i thought all the tests from around the world confirmed it is, you cant have it both ways, with this type of uncertainty i do wonder if we really know anything for sure

 

All the evidence shows it is expanding, so I have no idea what you mean by "both ways". But however much evidence you have, there might always be a "black sheep" out there which causes you to change your mind.

 

1+1=2 is that a fact Yes/No

 

That is mathematics, where things can be proved, not science (where they can't).

 

I have heard talk that the whole shammozzel could be a hologram.

 

That sounds like a gross simplification due to reading poor science journalism.

 

lets face the only fact we are ALL babes in the woods clutching at whatever our limited minds can take in. i think we need AI humans are flawed.

 

AI wouldn't make any difference to the way science works.

[Bluemercury]

 

 

AI wouldn't make any difference to the way science works.

I was thinking more of replacing it not helping it. but for now keep up the struggle. thanks If you look at the current definition of science (and even that is not agreed on) pure logical AI would not require such a crude instrument..

[Ophiolite]

1. What do you think is the current definition of science?

2. What aspects of science make it, in your view, a "crude instrument"?

3. Do you feel that logic alone would be sufficient for scientific investigations? (Your last sentence makes that an implicit absolute.)

[Strange]

I was thinking more of replacing it not helping it. but for now keep up the struggle. thanks If you look at the current definition of science (and even that is not agreed on) pure logical AI would not require such a crude instrument..

 

Why would "pure logical AI" (if such a thing were even possible) not need to test any ideas it came up with?

[Bluemercury]

Reasonable question, i think it would still need to establish the rules, and test certain things, but without our emotional and psychological traits i feel sure it would be more effective at reaching its conclusions, not to mention being somewhat quicker at doing it, it being reaching definitive results.

 

Thanks

Edited December 17, 2014 by Bluemercury

[Ophiolite]

Still waiting for the answers to the questions posed in #15.

 

1. What do you think is the current definition of science?

2. What aspects of science make it, in your view, a "crude instrument"?

3. Do you feel that logic alone would be sufficient for scientific investigations? (Your last sentence makes that an implicit absolute.)

 

You have answered three, in responding to Strange. 1 and 2 remain unaddressed.

[Bluemercury]

Still waiting for the answers to the questions posed in #15.

 

1. What do you think is the current definition of science?

2. What aspects of science make it, in your view, a "crude instrument"?

3. Do you feel that logic alone would be sufficient for scientific investigations? (Your last sentence makes that an implicit absolute.)

 

You have answered three, in responding to Strange. 1 and 2 remain unaddressed.

Well sorry to keep you waiting

 

1. You can look that up just as easily as i did, too much to write here. good luck finding one definitive answer.

2. That,s obvious "Humans" Eg... the inherent limitations of the human mind. Eg.... I have a 10 Dollar calculator that can calculate faster than... ill be nice and say us.

 

Hope this helps.

 

The human brain isn’t exactly like a hard drive either. It’s not prone to filling up, although there must be a point at which it will fill because there are limits to everything physical. Plus, human memory is so prone to fading (I know mine is) that the brain probably keeps plenty of space since not everything is retained indefinitely. The brain is so complex that we’re a long way from discovering all of its mysteries, and we might never actually know how much space it has. regardless the computer will catch up then overtake it is evolving at least 1000x faster than we are.

 

Eg... Remember 640KB +10years Megabytes + 10years Gigabytes +10years Terabytes +10years....well you see what i mean.

 

Thanks.

 

I must add that Stephen Hawkins is very concerned about this, he feels we may eventually be superseded.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Bluemercury

[Ophiolite]

1. You can look that up just as easily as i did, too much to write here. good luck finding one definitive answer.

Really? I can look up on the internet the answer to the question "What do you think is the current definition of science"? No, I cannot.

 

You are describing science as a "crude instrument". I need to understand what you consider science to be in order to determine if your statement applies to how you define science, or even if your definition of science is worth considering.

 

Will you now tell me what your definition of science is? Note that you must have one else you would not be able to describe it as a crude instrument.

 

 

2. That,s obvious "Humans" Eg... the inherent limitations of the human mind. Eg.... I have a 10 Dollar calculator that can calculate faster than... ill be nice and say us.

That's just silly. Science routinely employs all kinds of instruments, from the geologist's hammer to the large hadron collider, with which to investigate nature. These instruments are an integral part of science.

 

And of course that brings us back to question 1 and the increasing probability that you do not understand what science is. So, let's be having that definition please. Your definition.