The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1503
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by RJG » October 6th, 2019, 5:04 pm

Felix wrote:
October 6th, 2019, 4:10 pm
RJG: One implication is that science can now use this "fixed point of certainty" to better and more accurately explain the current state of our universe.
The observed cosmological facts do not accord with your "fixed point of certainty," so there's no reason to take it seriously.
Didn't you earlier agree that -- 'something' can't come from 'nothing'? ...did you change your mind?

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 2945
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by Felix » October 6th, 2019, 5:22 pm

RJG: Didn't you earlier agree that -- 'something' can't come from 'nothing'? ...did you change your mind?
That's a philosophical/metaphysical question. Scientists do not study abstract ideas, they study material phenomena and attempt to make sense of physical reality, which can be alogical and thus require nonlogical modes of mentation such as intuition to comprehend it.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 705
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by Mark1955 » October 7th, 2019, 9:19 am

Implications - it will keep some cosmologists in work arguing about it.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.

User avatar
arjand
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by arjand » October 7th, 2019, 5:11 pm

New physics required? Universe expanding much faster than predicted
29 April 2019: New evidence deepens a mystery around the Hubble constant, one of the most important numbers in cosmology.

New measurements show a big difference between early and late universe behaviour.

“This is not just two experiments disagreeing,” Riess explains.

“We are measuring something fundamentally different. One is a measurement of how fast the universe is expanding today, as we see it.

“The other is a prediction based on the physics of the early universe and on measurements of how fast it ought to be expanding. If these values don’t agree, there becomes a very strong likelihood that we’re missing something in the cosmological model that connects the two eras.”
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/new- ... -predicted
https://www.newscientist.com/article/20 ... e-thought/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... ectations/
https://phys.org/news/2019-04-hubble-un ... aster.html
Mark1955 wrote:
October 7th, 2019, 9:19 am
Implications - it will keep some cosmologists in work arguing about it.
Wouldn't that be philosophy?
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 781
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by Sculptor1 » October 7th, 2019, 5:31 pm

arjand wrote:
October 4th, 2019, 5:36 pm
A recent study has provided evidence that the laws of physics (nature) can change in time, indicating that the Universe may be infinite and has no beginning.

Laws of physics may change across the universe
Another author on the paper, Michael Murphy of Swinburne University in Australia, understands the caution. But he says the evidence for changing constants is piling up. “We just report what we find, and no one has been able to explain away these results in a decade of trying,” Murphy told New Scientist. “The fundamental constants being constant is an assumption. We’re here to test physics, not to assume it.”

"The discovery, if confirmed, has profound implications for our understanding of space and time and violates one of the fundamental principles underlying Einstein's General Relativity theory,"

The findings may imply that the Universe is infinite.
Sources:
https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~mmurphy/ ... universal/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 004112.htm
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... -universe/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... verse.html

Question: What would the implications be if it were to be true?

I've noticed that some scientists are complaining of religious practices. Some say that astrophysics is philosophy disguised as a science.

The Big Bang theory was invented by catholic priest Georges Lemaître for "a day without a yesterday". Lemaître was a personal friend of Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein initially criticized the theory but ultimately yielded to his friend's theory and helped to promote it. He called his own theory for the cosmological constant his "biggest blunder" while recent evidence has proven it to be correct.

Course of events:
In 1929, Hubble published a paper in which he established that not only were galaxies moving away from the Milky Way, but that more-distant galaxies were also receding more quickly. That is, the universe was not static. It was expanding. This observation (and those preceding Hubble's paper) led Belgian priest Georges Lemaître to propose in 1931 that the universe originated from a small and compact state, what he called a "Cosmic Egg" and what is now called the Big Bang.

With the realization that his earlier prejudice for an unchanging cosmos was wrong, Einstein embraced the Cosmic Egg theory and removed the cosmological constant from his equations. He called the Cosmic Egg theory the most beautiful creation story that he ever heard.

Einstein: "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," he said, and called his own theory the biggest blunder of his career.
Source: https://www.space.com/31055-removing-co ... under.html

I find it hard to believe that Albert Einstein accidentally made a mistake that he called his "biggest blunder" while recent studies are claiming that his biggest mistake was to call his theory a mistake. Also, to believe in a Cosmic Egg story is one thing, but to promote it as a scientist who created a later to be found correct contradicting theory, is another. It is not that easy to give up an idea as a scientist.

Einstein’s Lost Theory Describes a Universe Without a Big Bang
But it’s interesting to note that creation myths across cultures tell the opposite story. Traditions of Chinese, Indian, pre-Colombian, and African cultures, as well as the biblical book of Genesis, all describe (clearly in allegorical terms) a distinct beginning to the universe—whether it’s the “creation in six days” of Genesis or the “Cosmic Egg” of the ancient Indian text the Rig Veda.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/ ... -big-bang/

Why did Albert Einstein give up his theory?

The official story is that Albert Einstein was forced to admit that he was wrong by discoveries of Edwin Hubble. However, recently re-discovered papers show that Albert Einstein "habitually" misspelled the name of Hubble as "Hubbel", indicating that he may not have taken his discoveries serious.
It’s interesting that Einstein repeatedly misspells the name of Edwin Hubble (“Hubbel”). Had he not yet met Hubble in person? We don’t know. The spelling error does hint at the fact that he didn't take Hubble’s discovery serious.

April 4, 1931: Over the next few months he reviewed the published literature on the expanding universe problem. His opinion continued to evolve and in mid-March he sat down and started writing a paper for the Prussian Academy of Sciences where he finally renounced the cosmological constant. In putting it together he only made oblique referenced the works of Hubble and whose last name he habitually misspelled as "Hubbel," indicating that he may not have read any of Hubble's papers.
It appears to disprove the official story that Hubble's discovery forced Albert Einstein to admit that he made a mistake.

Why did Albert Einstein decide to promote the Big Bang theory? If there were a motive, might it still be relevant today? There may be value in the answer, to improve the quest for truth in the future or maybe to protect or improve societal interests.

Some scientists are complaining that the Big Bang theory is a religion:
1) The Monopole Problem
2) The Flatness Problem
3) The Horizon Problem

You will find the above three problems religiously repeated as a motivation for inflation, in lectures and textbooks and popular science pages all over the place.

Source: Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics.

One of inflation’s cofounders has turned his back on the idea. But practically no one else is following him. Is he right?

I was dismayed to see that the criticism by Steinhardt, Ijas, and Loeb that inflation is not a scientific theory, was dismissed so quickly by a community which has become too comfortable with itself.

There’s no warning sign you when you cross the border between science and blabla-land. But inflationary model building left behind reasonable scientific speculation long ago. I, for one, am glad that at least some people are speaking out about it. And that’s why I approve of the Steinhardt et al. criticism.
Some recent sources show that the Big Bang theory may be incorrect:

Big Bang theory wrong? Star older than Universe discovered - threat of ‘scientific crisis’
The Big Bang theory has been thrown into question after scientists discovered a star which appears to be older than the Universe itself – and it could lead to a “scientific crisis”.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... space-2019
Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang impossible
Astronomers have spotted a black hole that is as old as the universe itself, putting a huge question mark over the Big Bang theory.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... erse-space
The Horizon Problem may provide a clue that it is not likely that the Big Bang theory is correct.
In our hu-man words, this means 13.8 billion light-years in all directions, the Universe doesn't repeat. Light has been travelling towards us for 13.8 billion years this way, and 13.8 billion years that way, and 13.8 billion years that way; and that's just when the light left those regions. The expansion of the Universe has carried them from 47.5 billion light years away. Based on this, our Universe is 93 billion light-years across and earth is in the exact middle of the Universe.

If we look far out into space, billions of light years away, we see photons with the same temperature -- roughly 2.725 degrees Kelvin. If we look in another direction, we find the same thing. What a coincidence! In fact, when astronomers look in all directions, no matter how distant, they find that all regions have the same temperature. This is incredibly puzzling, Siegel says, "since these regions are separated by distances that are greater than any signal, even light, could have traveled in the time since the Universe was born.
https://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe- ... inite.html

If nature can change in time and if the Universe does not have a beginning, what would the implications be when humans would withdraw from the "Cosmic Egg" aka Big Bang story?

If a creation story was chosen for societal interests, why do people in general need such a story? Are there alternatives while maintaining an accurate search for truth?
There is nothing at all to answer here. Nothing more than idle speculation for which no evidence is offered nor for which any evidence is possible.

Quoting from the only half decent source you offer;

"...according to Lennox Cowie, who works at the Institute for Astronomy in Hawaii. But, he adds, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: “That’s way beyond what we have here.” He says the statistical significance of the new observations is too small to prove that alpha is changing...."

User avatar
arjand
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by arjand » October 7th, 2019, 5:51 pm

Felix wrote:
October 6th, 2019, 5:22 pm
RJG: Didn't you earlier agree that -- 'something' can't come from 'nothing'? ...did you change your mind?
That's a philosophical/metaphysical question. Scientists do not study abstract ideas, they study material phenomena and attempt to make sense of physical reality, which can be alogical and thus require nonlogical modes of mentation such as intuition to comprehend it.
The aforementioned observations are subject to speculation. The theory for the expansion of the Universe is based on the Doppler interpretation for the observed redshift.

At the time that Edwin Hubble suggested the Doppler interpretation to explain the observed redshift there was another theory emerging called "tired light". It would have made Albert Einstein's original theory plausible at that time.

It may be an extra clue that Albert Einstein did not need to give up his theory due to early observations by Edwin Hubble.

The tired light theory was recently re-developed by scientists from Xinjiang Astronomical Observatory in China.
The cosmological model based on the tired light theory gets rid of the problems that are related to Big Bang, that is, the super velocity problem, the horizon effect, and the problem of the beginning of the Cosmos. Moreover, the model explains the cosmic microwave background radiation as a natural result of the tired light effect, and therefore, Olbers’ paradox is disappeared. Based on the tired light theory and together from the cosmological principle, the Cosmos is infinite and eternal.
https://www.intechopen.com/books/redefi ... e-big-bang
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.

User avatar
arjand
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by arjand » October 8th, 2019, 8:20 am

Sculptor1 wrote:
October 7th, 2019, 5:31 pm
There is nothing at all to answer here. Nothing more than idle speculation for which no evidence is offered nor for which any evidence is possible.
Why would it not be possible to prove that the Universe is infinite?
Sculptor1 wrote:
October 7th, 2019, 5:31 pm
Quoting from the only half decent source you offer;

"...according to Lennox Cowie, who works at the Institute for Astronomy in Hawaii. But, he adds, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: “That’s way beyond what we have here.” He says the statistical significance of the new observations is too small to prove that alpha is changing...."
It is important to take notice of the reply from the authors of the study:

"the evidence for changing constants is piling up. “We just report what we find, and no one has been able to explain away these results in a decade of trying,” Murphy told New Scientist. “The fundamental constants being constant is an assumption. We’re here to test physics, not to assume it."

The final argument, in response to the head of Fermilab, "we are here to test physics, not to believe in it", is a powerful argument coming from scientists from top Universities.
Other researchers involved in the research are Professor Victor Flambaum and PhD student Matthew Bainbridge from the University of New South Wales, and Professor Bob Carswell at the University of Cambridge (UK).
There have been four studies that have confirmed the findings.
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 781
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by Sculptor1 » October 8th, 2019, 12:22 pm

arjand wrote:
October 8th, 2019, 8:20 am
Sculptor1 wrote:
October 7th, 2019, 5:31 pm
There is nothing at all to answer here. Nothing more than idle speculation for which no evidence is offered nor for which any evidence is possible.
Why would it not be possible to prove that the Universe is infinite?
The infinitude of the universe is not in contention. However, you've only to think for a moment that this too is completely impossible to prove. What would the evidence look like? Since we can only have a limited view, temporally and physically, of the universe it is not possible to see anything infinite. In fact no finite creature could ever prove infinitude.
Sculptor1 wrote:
October 7th, 2019, 5:31 pm
Quoting from the only half decent source you offer;

"...according to Lennox Cowie, who works at the Institute for Astronomy in Hawaii. But, he adds, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: “That’s way beyond what we have here.” He says the statistical significance of the new observations is too small to prove that alpha is changing...."
It is important to take notice of the reply from the authors of the study:

"the evidence for changing constants is piling up. “We just report what we find, and no one has been able to explain away these results in a decade of trying,” Murphy told New Scientist. “The fundamental constants being constant is an assumption. We’re here to test physics, not to assume it."

The final argument, in response to the head of Fermilab, "we are here to test physics, not to believe in it", is a powerful argument coming from scientists from top Universities.
Other researchers involved in the research are Professor Victor Flambaum and PhD student Matthew Bainbridge from the University of New South Wales, and Professor Bob Carswell at the University of Cambridge (UK).
There have been four studies that have confirmed the findings.

User avatar
arjand
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by arjand » October 8th, 2019, 1:51 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
October 8th, 2019, 12:22 pm
The infinitude of the universe is not in contention. However, you've only to think for a moment that this too is completely impossible to prove. What would the evidence look like? Since we can only have a limited view, temporally and physically, of the universe it is not possible to see anything infinite. In fact no finite creature could ever prove infinitude.
Spooky action at a distance or quantum entanglement may provide a clue that evidence may be possible. How can it be explained that two particles can be connected and interact instantaneously at great distances?

Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ spotted in objects almost big enough to see
One of the strangest aspects of quantum physics is entanglement: If you observe a particle in one place, another particle—even one light-years away—will instantly change its properties, as if the two are connected by a mysterious communication channel. Scientists have observed this phenomenon in tiny objects such as atoms and electrons. But in two new studies, researchers report seeing entanglement in devices nearly visible to the naked eye.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04 ... enough-see

Infinity may explain the possibility.
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 781
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by Sculptor1 » October 8th, 2019, 2:21 pm

arjand wrote:
October 8th, 2019, 1:51 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
October 8th, 2019, 12:22 pm
The infinitude of the universe is not in contention. However, you've only to think for a moment that this too is completely impossible to prove. What would the evidence look like? Since we can only have a limited view, temporally and physically, of the universe it is not possible to see anything infinite. In fact no finite creature could ever prove infinitude.
Spooky action at a distance or quantum entanglement may provide a clue that evidence may be possible. How can it be explained that two particles can be connected and interact instantaneously at great distances?

Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ spotted in objects almost big enough to see
One of the strangest aspects of quantum physics is entanglement: If you observe a particle in one place, another particle—even one light-years away—will instantly change its properties, as if the two are connected by a mysterious communication channel. Scientists have observed this phenomenon in tiny objects such as atoms and electrons. But in two new studies, researchers report seeing entanglement in devices nearly visible to the naked eye.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04 ... enough-see

Infinity may explain the possibility.
It is clear you do not have the simplest grasp of the concept of infinity.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 2945
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by Felix » October 8th, 2019, 3:09 pm

arjand: The tired light theory was recently re-developed by scientists from Xinjiang Astronomical Observatory in China.
It is based on the Solid State theory, which is not supported by the observed cosmological evidence, e.g., the types and ratios of elementary particles, and cosmic microwave background radiation levels, found in our Universe.
The cosmological model based on the tired light theory gets rid of the problems that are related to Big Bang, that is, the super velocity problem, the horizon effect, and the problem of the beginning of the Cosmos.
The issues named are of only minor significance.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
arjand
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by arjand » October 8th, 2019, 4:22 pm

Felix wrote:
October 8th, 2019, 3:09 pm
arjand: The tired light theory was recently re-developed by scientists from Xinjiang Astronomical Observatory in China.
It is based on the Solid State theory, which is not supported by the observed cosmological evidence, e.g., the types and ratios of elementary particles, and cosmic microwave background radiation levels, found in our Universe.
A Russian scientist appears to disagree in a 2018 paper:
Such red shift (and reduction of energy) may be simply explained by natural dissipation of energy of electromagnetic waves while they are propagating through the filled by DM space, which is real material medium. As clear, such dissipation must increase with increasing space distance, what logically explains the observed red shift increase with space distance. This materialistic explanation of observed red shift, known as concept of tired light, is natural and evidently true since it eliminates both obviously mysterious ideas about Universe inflation, induced by physically queer assumption of Big Bang, and about physically unexplained reason of dark energy.
Source: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 012017/pdf

His papers are published in Journal of Physics.
Felix wrote:
October 8th, 2019, 3:09 pm
The issues named are of only minor significance.
Not according to some if you intend to refer to inflation theory as a solution.
One of inflation’s cofounders has turned his back on the idea. But practically no one else is following him. Is he right?

I was dismayed to see that the criticism by Steinhardt, Ijas, and Loeb that inflation is not a scientific theory, was dismissed so quickly by a community which has become too comfortable with itself.

There’s no warning sign you when you cross the border between science and blabla-land. But inflationary model building left behind reasonable scientific speculation long ago. I, for one, am glad that at least some people are speaking out about it. And that’s why I approve of the Steinhardt et al. criticism.

Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics.
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.

User avatar
arjand
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by arjand » October 8th, 2019, 4:30 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
October 8th, 2019, 2:21 pm
It is clear you do not have the simplest grasp of the concept of infinity.
That may be true but with regard to the provided clue/example, if infinity has no beginning it logically knows no distance.
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 2945
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by Felix » October 8th, 2019, 6:22 pm

arjand: His papers are published in Journal of Physics.
I know of no journal with that generic name. By the way, I said Solid State cosmological theory, I meant to say Steady State.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
arjand
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by arjand » October 9th, 2019, 5:12 am

It's mentioned at Harvard.edu.

Author: Boriev, I. A. (Russian Academy of Sciences)
Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Volume 996, Issue 1, article id. 012014 (2018)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JPhCS.996a2014B
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.

Post Reply