Evolving Physics
[WHO]Them![[WHO]Them](https://forumstest.unknownworlds.com/uploads/ipb/nav-10593.jpg)
You can call me Dave Join Date: 2002-12-11 Member: 10593Members, Constellation
You can call me Dave Join Date: 2002-12-11 Member: 10593Members, Constellation
in Discussions
So, I was thinking about intelligent design versus evolution today. And I eventually moved onto the more important point which is that neither one has an acceptable origin at the "something came from nothing" level. At which point I moved on to wondering why physics forces exist in the forms that we observe. Because if you're creating something from nothing, then the laws that govern that something are completely arbitrary. So for some reason I presented myself the hypothesis that there are in fact only one or two core forces in the universe and that those forces must be suspended in a system that can never reach equilibrium. So, if such an unstable system were left on it's own for an unimaginable amount of time. It would eventually lead to complex interactions an an imperceptibly small scale.
So, that got me thinking. Life today sprung from single celled organisms with no will or intent, only simple mechanics. Why wouldn't it be entirely within the realm of possibility that physics itself could be an evolving process? And by extension, leading to the mechanics driving said single celled organisms.
It's purely hypothetical and I can't even pretend that I could begin to prove it. But I'm starting to think that it's possible that certain physical forces are not distributed throughout the entirety of the universe. Sort of like how you know that grass covers a whole lot of the land on earth, but there are still desolate wastelands out there.
Just thought I'd share this thought that has me intrigued with you guys.
So, that got me thinking. Life today sprung from single celled organisms with no will or intent, only simple mechanics. Why wouldn't it be entirely within the realm of possibility that physics itself could be an evolving process? And by extension, leading to the mechanics driving said single celled organisms.
It's purely hypothetical and I can't even pretend that I could begin to prove it. But I'm starting to think that it's possible that certain physical forces are not distributed throughout the entirety of the universe. Sort of like how you know that grass covers a whole lot of the land on earth, but there are still desolate wastelands out there.
Just thought I'd share this thought that has me intrigued with you guys.
Comments
about the beginning of universe, i believe the Chinese way that theres no beginning or ending. everything its just a cycle of itself, so in this case, the conservation laws would hold
correct me if i am wrong as i am only a high school science student
So, I was thinking about intelligent design versus evolution today. And I eventually moved onto the more important point which is that neither one has an acceptable origin at the "something came from nothing" level. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good catch! I can't offer a definitive answer to it, but I can offer you my personal view on it.
I don't think there is ANY possible "good" answer to the question of ultimate origin...the "something from nothing" point, as you put it. By which I mean, any possible answer to that question will have to bend the rules as we know it...but! Some answers will bend them less.
At the point of ultimate origin, there are really two fundamental states that could exist. Either there was nothing, by which I mean TRULY nothing, not even empty space, and then suddenly there was something....or else there was something that had ALWAYS been, since eternity, with no origin.
I don't believe there is any satisfactory explanation for how ANYTHING could come from true nothingness, as any mechanism you propose to explain it will most likely fall into the second category, with that mechanism having existed since eternity.
That leaves us with the possibility of some force or mechanism that had NO BEGINNING, it simply always was. Thats a hard concept to wrap our heads around, but its not completely unconceivable. When compared to the alternative, it almost seems reasonable. So lets assume for a moment that we have a force-with-no-beginning. What else can we tell about this force? I propose to you that it must be a SENTIENT force.
Why? Because a Sentient force is capable of waiting for eternity, and then randomly and arbitrarily deciding one day, "I think <i>today</i> is the day I want to make a Universe". Any purely natural force, guided by physical rules, would inevitably spawn whatever it was going to spawn after some set length of time. Even if the physical rules it was operating under were mutating over time, there would still be some length of time of operation after which the "event" would happen, whatever that "event" is (big bang maybe?). But that can't be, because we've already postulated that this force has been around forever, for all eternity. If it only takes (really large number) of years to make our universe, what was this force doing <i>before</i> that? And before that? So a Sentient force makes more sense as the ultimate origin point.
Once you reach that point, you can start asking all sorts of fun questions about what that sentient force would be like, but thats the realm of Philosophy, not Physics.
At the point of ultimate origin, there are really two fundamental states that could exist. Either there was nothing, by which I mean TRULY nothing, not even empty space, and then suddenly there was something....or else there was something that had ALWAYS been, since eternity, with no origin.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's also the possiblity that the universe is cyclic, periodically expanding and collapsing in on itself; sort of a middleground between the two possiblities you suggested.
Having said that, it isn't a new idea that the laws of physics change with space and time. I haven't read anything on this in years, so I don't know what current thinking is, but you might want to look into it more, but what process do you think is shaping reality? Why do you think the current laws are the way they are today? Or even, can you consider a single reason why a law would change? It would have to be based on something tangible for it to be a process we can even observe.
One critical mistake you are making is asking for an explanation for 'something from nothing' from either ID or Darwinism. Darwinism clearly talks about the world we live in, it doesn't need to explain why it is here, it is a theory based on observation and experimentation. Intelligent design has been very clever to never talk about a creator and to never talk about the moment of creation. ID is simply a set of [alleged] weaknesses in Darwinism that have been hand selected to demonstrate that Evolution has to have an designer. The arguments of ID are really poor, scientifically, and really weak logically, and have been successfully debunked many times. The real victory of the ID camp is they have put the 'idea' on a platform with evolution so the christian world now has a meme that can be easily used to dismiss one of the most important scientific discoveries in history.
Lofung: The Eastern view of a constantly recycling universe gels well with the big bang/big crunch model proposed by science. However, I for one don't think that Eastern mystics had knowledge of this process. With so many alternative mystical views of reality, one of them was bound to get it right by accident alone. More precisely, as science produces different theories on creation, there will probably always be an old religion that shares a similar view. ( Read the Dancing Wu-Li masters to see how someone can claim that buddist mystics had foreknowledge of a quantum universe )
Cxwf: This 'something from nothing' is very much a Monotheist world view, and one that science doesn't really share. Even the most similar scientific view - 'The Big Bang Theory' - talks about a cyclical process, nowhere in the theory does it require a reason for it to occur. And your 'personal theory' doesn't seem logical to me at all. It simply does not follow that since the universe was created at a specific time in history that it was a) planned to occur at that time, or b) organised by a timeless entity. The questions it raises are bizarre. How can something live outside the universe it created? How can it create the universe? How can it interact with the universe? Where is it now? You have answered a huge question, and in the process you have created several even larger questions. How can this be a satisfactory answer? Deus ex machina seems to be at play here, and I for one have no time for such 'thinking'.
Good catch! I can't offer a definitive answer to it, but I can offer you my personal view on it.
I don't think there is ANY possible "good" answer to the question of ultimate origin...the "something from nothing" point, as you put it. By which I mean, any possible answer to that question will have to bend the rules as we know it...but! Some answers will bend them less.
At the point of ultimate origin, there are really two fundamental states that could exist. Either there was nothing, by which I mean TRULY nothing, not even empty space, and then suddenly there was something....or else there was something that had ALWAYS been, since eternity, with no origin.
I don't believe there is any satisfactory explanation for how ANYTHING could come from true nothingness, as any mechanism you propose to explain it will most likely fall into the second category, with that mechanism having existed since eternity.
That leaves us with the possibility of some force or mechanism that had NO BEGINNING, it simply always was. Thats a hard concept to wrap our heads around, but its not completely unconceivable. When compared to the alternative, it almost seems reasonable. So lets assume for a moment that we have a force-with-no-beginning. What else can we tell about this force? I propose to you that it must be a SENTIENT force.
Why? Because a Sentient force is capable of waiting for eternity, and then randomly and arbitrarily deciding one day, "I think <i>today</i> is the day I want to make a Universe". Any purely natural force, guided by physical rules, would inevitably spawn whatever it was going to spawn after some set length of time. Even if the physical rules it was operating under were mutating over time, there would still be some length of time of operation after which the "event" would happen, whatever that "event" is (big bang maybe?). But that can't be, because we've already postulated that this force has been around forever, for all eternity. If it only takes (really large number) of years to make our universe, what was this force doing <i>before</i> that? And before that? So a Sentient force makes more sense as the ultimate origin point.
Once you reach that point, you can start asking all sorts of fun questions about what that sentient force would be like, but thats the realm of Philosophy, not Physics.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or to sum it up: "God did it."
A universe with an absolute inertial reference frame is logically inconsistent, for example. I say "believe" because I don't think we can grasp a full appreciation for this inconsistency until we understand physics on even more fundamental levels. As another powerful example, when classical electromagnetism is examined with a critical eye, its internal inconsistencies naturally lead to both the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.
Also, I am skeptical when particle physicists quote the low "possibility" of the particular set of values of universal constants, because it is likely they are connected at some deeper level; eventually this set will be distilled to fewer and fewer constants as the goal of grand unification draws nearer, until there are no fundamental constants left at all.
Arguing by analogy, I believe that complete emptiness is also logically inconsistent, in some elegant and powerful sense. So I argue to replace ideas such as a "sentient force" "instant of first fluctuation" or "prime mover" by the idea that the universe is both physically and metaphysically compelled to behave in the way it does, and is similarly thus compelled to reject nonexistence as a possible state. Hello world.
On physics evolving, I dont think so. Physical laws will never change. I think they are set from the beginning of time. It is only in different conditions, they seem to have different laws, but it is only because of the conditions. For example, newton's law of gravitation does not apply throughout the entire universe. we humans only observe. what we know now may or may not be correct because we r only confined within our small planet. physics does not evolve. its just us continuously correcting our mistakes.
Cxwf: This 'something from nothing' is very much a Monotheist world view, and one that science doesn't really share.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not arguing FOR something from nothing, I'm arguing AGAINST it. Even if the entire universe simply sprang into being because God willed it, thats not something-from-nothing, thats something-from-God. So I'm suggesting that there is NO something-from-nothing, as a stepping stone to figuring out where all the something's came from.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Even the most similar scientific view - 'The Big Bang Theory' - talks about a cyclical process, nowhere in the theory does it require a reason for it to occur.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't <i>offer</i> a reason, which is a far cry from not <i>requiring</i> one. Everything in science requires a reason, just many of them are reasons we haven't found yet. Note also that many of the proposed reasons for the big bang are postulated to occur in some region outside our universe. As strange as that may seem, its kind of a fundamental quality of anything that can create a universe that it can't very well reside inside that universe, before creating it, now can it?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And your 'personal theory' doesn't seem logical to me at all. It simply does not follow that since the universe was created at a specific time in history that it was a) planned to occur at that time, or b) organised by a timeless entity.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, since we've already dismissed the possibility of something from nothing, you can ask the question, how long was it before our universe came into being? And the answer has to be "eternity", its literally been forever. So what organized it? You want to propose a cyclical process that continually reforges a fresh young universe from the compressed ashes of the old one. So how many times has this process gone on already? An inifinite number of times. There is no limit to the number of times the universe was squashed into a big crunch and then re-forged in a new big bang. What that means is, if even a single joule of energy was lost between each big bang, the universe would eventually run down like a clock. And not only would it <i>eventually</i> run down, but it would have <i>already finished</i> running down before we were ever born, because its already had FOREVER to try. The cyclical big crunch model cannot exist unless every single joule of energy radiated into deep space is collected as fuel for the next bang. (Theres probably more I can say about it if I take some time to think.)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It simply does not follow that since the universe was created at a specific time in history that it was a) planned to occur at that time, or b) organised by a timeless entity. The questions it raises are bizarre. How can something live outside the universe it created? How can it create the universe? How can it interact with the universe? Where is it now? You have answered a huge question, and in the process you have created several even larger questions. How can this be a satisfactory answer? Deus ex machina seems to be at play here, and I for one have no time for such 'thinking'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have successfully raised a number of the most important philosophical questions known to man, and then casually dismissed them all as not even worthy of real thought. Deus ex machina? Only the one you've invented to avoid looking at the question.
So yeah, is that what you're talking about, because that's what physicists believe... about forces. I think you are right, there really only is one fundamental "force." But the point of physics really is to determine what does NOT change from place to place. What can you count on the universe doing the same everywhere? Because if it evolves or changes, then physicists would simply enlarge their domain to encompass it, and study that in addition. And then it would not be physics itself that evolves, only its definition.
So it depends on how you define physics, how you define evolves, and how you define forces. (Or how you define "define"... <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> )
go take a physics class and a biology class. you sound like someone trying to come off as pretentious but who doesn't have enough knowledge to do so. natural selection isn't an example of a process of laws that change over time; it's an example of the results that occur when constant laws are applied to a system. if you can come up with a single example of where your evolving physical laws idea would be helpful in understanding physics, then please share it with the world--otherwise it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey look, it's scooter blue. I never would have guessed that he'd stop by and troll a while.
go take a physics class and a biology class. you sound like someone trying to come off as pretentious but who doesn't have enough knowledge to do so. natural selection isn't an example of a process of laws that change over time; it's an example of the results that occur when constant laws are applied to a system. if you can come up with a single example of where your evolving physical laws idea would be helpful in understanding physics, then please share it with the world--otherwise it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I don't know the details, there are physical theories that have been and are being seriously considered that involve the speed of light changing over time.
Also, you may be familiar with <a href="http://www.stephenwolfram.com/" target="_blank">stephen wolfram</a> but he's been an advocate of the last few years of investigating the physical sciences with the math of cellular automata, which is the first thing I thought of when I read Them's post.
When Them is publishing in a peer reviewed journal feel free to lambast him. Personally I think interesting thought experiments or brain storms don't need to have a problem to solve, they can just be neat.
Its the kind of thing that even if you were to test, you'd have a hard time proving it. Its almost similar to my theory that we all see different colors of the same shade: Where I see blue, you would see my red, but you call it blue as it as been called that to you. Impossible to prove, and it would obstruct many things about the way we do view what we see- with evolving physics, 3 can become 4 and 5 can become 4, etc etc, simply because of changes in the system. PI would be reduced to nothing, which would worsen the entire prospect even more.
Its certainly possible, and I'm as educated as you on the subject, but its one of those things where it quickly turns into your own mind's endless loop.
I don't really see a reason why time as we know it must exist outside our known existance, so that part can pretty much be droppd from the discussion in my opinion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed. Time is certainly more difficult to discard than space for with it go all conventional notions of causality, but this is no reason to presume the presence of any notion of time before the universe began. Thence, the premise that the universe (assuming non-cyclicity) began at some arbitrary point in eternity is unsound.
the physics at quantum level is totally filled of randomness. i guess these randomness would lead to some sort of big event to destroy the equilibrium it is today
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't say it's random, I'd just say humans have no way of understanding it yet and we may never have anyway of understanding it.
the physics at quantum level is totally filled of randomness<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well its not really filled with randomness <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Its more filled with statistics.
A small example: A single electron, can be ANYWERE in the universe. But in 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999998% of of all observed events, it is within 1A of its corresponding core.
Or in other words: In order to observe a electron, beeing farther away from its bound core, than 1A you would need to observe it twice as long, as the universe is old, if you measure every second.
---
On a certian level you can also argue, that randomness does not exist. Humans only think that randomness does exists, cause there is a nearly infinite amount of parameters, that influences every event. THe problem is, that time is also a parameter for every event. So every event only playes once, and then never again. Yet we always get the same results for an experiment, although we control only a small number of parameters.
Easy answer: 99,99% of your experiment is determined by about 100 parameters, which do not change or do just fluctuate slightly. The other nearly infinite parameters make up the remaining 0.01% But we are not able to determine a diffrence, cause we cannot measure precisly enough.
In order to makes this any stranger: When you perform anm experiment it makes a diffrence, wether flayra is currently watching TV or not. But because the impact of this parameter on your experiment is nearly not existend (its not equal to 0)you wont notice, unless you improve your measureing systems by about 100000000% and control every other parameter, expect flayras postition. (this of course includes time)
---
This might seem irritating at first, but it cannot be disproven atm.
You can also assume, that there is no consistency of time. Meaning that similiar to PCs everything is processed one after another. Yes, this would mean that an electron belonging to a core of an atom of an molecul of a protein of the wall of onc of my liver cells does move, while the rest of the universe is standing still. The trick here is, that the movement intervalls would be so small, that for human percetption everything would seem to happen at the same time. To pick up the PC comparison: Although the goblin and the ork seem to move at you, at the same time, the PC actually processes the events leading to this movement one after another. But still for us it seems that they move parallel.
---
Disclaimer:
Dont try to argue, cause i cannot proove it and you cannot disproove it <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1573956:date=Nov 6 2006, 04:46 PM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Nov 6 2006, 04:46 PM) [snapback]1573956[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Evolving Physics?
Its the kind of thing that even if you were to test, you'd have a hard time proving it. Its almost similar to my theory that we all see different colors of the same shade: Where I see blue, you would see my red, but you call it blue as it as been called that to you. Impossible to prove, and it would obstruct many things about the way we do view what we see- with evolving physics, 3 can become 4 and 5 can become 4, etc etc, simply because of changes in the system. PI would be reduced to nothing, which would worsen the entire prospect even more.
Its certainly possible, and I'm as educated as you on the subject, but its one of those things where it quickly turns into your own mind's endless loop.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
AH yes, funny thought. The problem is, that it lacks meaning. Or in other words: It doesnt matter wether we actually speak the same language, as long as we understand each other.
And then we have of course the genome, which defines the way we percept coulors. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/marine.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::marine::" border="0" alt="marine.gif" />
I wouldn't say it's random, I'd just say humans have no way of understanding it yet and we may never have anyway of understanding it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that there are no hidden variables in quantum mechanics that can account for the behavior we observe. I'm almost positive that some aspects of QM are actually random...
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem</a>
Same thing to Faskalia. If you don't know anything about QM, I'd suggest you stop speculating about how there are hidden variables, or how it's really deterministic. You're relying on your common sense and intuition and they just don't work well at the quantum mechanical level...
[...]Disclaimer:
Dont try to argue, cause i cannot proove it and you cannot disproove it :)[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find this highly amusing, considering this forum is called "Discussions." :D
I am not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that there are no hidden variables in quantum mechanics that can account for the behavior we observe. I'm almost positive that some aspects of QM are actually random...
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem</a>
Same thing to Faskalia. If you don't know anything about QM, I'd suggest you stop speculating about how there are hidden variables, or how it's really deterministic. You're relying on your common sense and intuition and they just don't work well at the quantum mechanical level...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bells theorem still suffers from the problem, that the event of observation/measurement is what causes a QM system to react. And the whole QM actually suffers from the fact, that you cannot fully calculate a system with more than 2 participants. You always rely on approximations.
And if i know one thing about QM, its the fact that it keeps me busy every few semesters <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
But hey, if you are not open to the phylosopical aspects of randomness and such you might get a splinter from that board...
isn't the theory "something moved" not "something that moved came"?