The laws of nature have diversified and grown more complex as time has progressed since the big bang, right...

The laws of nature have diversified and grown more complex as time has progressed since the big bang, right? Is the idea ever taken seriously that the physical laws that we observe are actually dynamically changing? I've been curious about this for a while. Unfortunately I am not in cahoots with many physicists.

Could there be a differential equation describing the evolution of the universe's physical properties themselves? Perhaps things such as the free energy principle are emergent qualities from some self-reference on the level of the dynamics of physical laws.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncommutative_quantum_field_theory
physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

That's a pretty good question. Looking at old objects (objects very far) we see similar structures to the object near us, in other words, the first galaxies seem to obey the same principles as ours. So, it's good hypothesis that the laws of physics havent changed in all that time.

>The laws of nature have diversified and grown more complex as time has progressed since the big bang, right?
Not sure if that's sensible. I'd take the standpoint that there are only phenomena and models*, but even if you're a realist about an (essentially probably unattainable) "real" laws of the universe, and they could be put in math, then you would have a variation of some of it's constituents (e.g. in time) just a feature of the laws. Why do you think that a notion of "dynamically changing" would be external to a law. The "differential equation describing the evolution of the universe's physical properties" would be the physical law.

*You must realize that if, just for example, our world is better described via non-commutative function algebras, as e.g. in
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncommutative_quantum_field_theory
than coordinate functions (coordinate rings) and space and spacetime as to be modeled via a set of point equipped with something like a spacetime metric, and force fields F(x) a functions of space and space time, is merely a coarse grain notion. And as soon as we were able to handly a more complicated notion of space better, we'd again find that it's also inaccurate and so the trowing away of notions continues. There is no good notion of mass, for example, on the QFT level, only effective blobs that eventually stem from come coefficients in some representation of some Lagrangian densities...

That's good stuff but I think OPs question had sense.

Unless the laws of nature have been changing completely at random, then they are changing following the laws of nature which means they aren't actually changing.

I remember watching a video from a skitso on youtube stating that universal constants are not all constant. They change over time, either due to them actually changing or due to them being different in different locations that we travel through as our star orbits the galactic core//expands from the big bang origin. He cited historical inaccuracies in the reported values of these constants in the past, these values where derived experimentally and had a margin of error reported much smaller than the magnitude of the difference between them and the current known values. These historical values had several authors publishing the same proximate value that where very close one to another. I assume that either in the past they all shared flawed methodology or they modified there results to fit the prevailing wisdom.

In all I gave the theory no more weight than flat earth but hey, its out there, if you want to drive yourself mad you wont be alone on this one.

A "physical constant" is just an artifact of a theory that tomorrow may probably be just an old theory.
Given a theory with a constant c in in, writing down a new theory with similar equations and fitting modifications and where c is replaces by a function c(t,x), you just have a new theory and nowhere are "laws changing". You just have time dependent quantities IN the new theory. In the new "laws". And in the next theory, those notions like "c" might be gone completely and only obtainable, or referencable, in some correspondence and limit.

I saw a graphic somewhere that showed which forces branched off of which as the universe aged; it could be that the change is slowing logarithmically or something, so that matter continues to behave in similar ways far away in spacetime. The reason I brought up the free energy principle is because it may be that things diversify at higher and higher levels of fundamentality as time progresses. First time had to be created, which is essentially the content of the first instant of the big bang. Then forces began to diversify. Then chemical processes began to emerge, followed by life processes and social processes. (This is reductionary for the sake of brevity and because I think it still illustrates my ideas.)

I agree with pretty much all of your points, but I think the goal of physics is to refine its models to offer increasingly more descriptive pictures of how reality behaves. I don't see anything wrong with at least aiming to "perfectly" describe everything, because it leads to better and better theories. My question still stand though: are there any serious conversations happening regarding this that I can read about online? Also, thank you for your insights Bildschirmfoto guy.

This is why I think self-reference is playing a major role here; in a sense, self-reference and feedback are all that can force any change in fundamental constraints.

What happens in the limit of this process? Do we just end up with a simulation of reality? lolz

No user the moment the big bang occured the laws of nature already existed.

Anyone lick shit?

Hey asshole

Check this out. physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html

Hello! Asshole reporting in. Finding any skanks, or nah?

user by laws of nature I mean the thing that make quantum physics possible in the first place.

Have we verified that they have been in place all this time? I was under the impression that it is one of those implicit assumptions that physicists make, but I would love to hear more about this.

>My question still stand though: are there any serious conversations happening regarding this that I can read about online?
By why does the question still stand? I made my point I think:
If you take a model with an explicit time dependence on this and that terms, then you have a laws that depend on time, but there is no change in the sense that laws change. The time dependence is then part of it.

The Einstein equation equation G=T has the whole right hand side free to plug in, for each new situation. G is essentially a laplace operator applied to the spacetime metric and T an energy density for whatever matter you want to consider.
If you look at theoretical cosmology, you'll surely find some models with time dependece. You're allowed to tweak whatever model you have, e.g.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
Maybe that's a starting point for looking for time dependent models
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

The fundamental theories of matter (quantum-xxx) are not tailored for computation on cosmic time scales and thus don't feature gigantic period lengths that would amount to changing behavior.

No, there's not enough money to be put into gathering high enough energies to go on forever with our experiments (that trigger theoretical research). So we don't reach anything.
And even if, I'd rather imagine it as a on open patch, rather than a closed one. And one without a proper metric - we don't even get closer :^)
Besides, fapping over fundamental physics ... it's not so important. Improving computation techniques and stochstics and handling data is just as interesting.

So the answer is, "no, it isn't discussed because physics is focused on time-local models because they are verifiable and coincide well the collection of data?" I was just curious about this topic, but I sense some vitriol on your end. I really do appreciate your comments and perspectives.

I would like to look further into constructing a model where spacetime is just a rudimentary progenitor of "higher structures," for my own sake. I figured I would ask around and see if there is already literature on the matter.

Feynman asked this 50 years ago faggot

...

>vitriol
Na, I'm just trying to find out what kind of answer there possibly could be, apart from just other models that have c(t) where you have c now. If that doesn't work, then what does "laws that we observe are actually dynamically changing" mean?
There are hardly any constants in fundamental physics, really, just the factor of terms in the Lagrangians, and often there are constraints like you wanting Lagrangians to be invariant under a local Poincare group and so things can't get so freaky.

>I would like to look further into constructing a model where spacetime is just a rudimentary progenitor of "higher structures," for my own sake.
Maybe the keyword "emergent gravity" brings you further.
Or Matrix Models
Or Wheeler–DeWitt equation

Thank you! Where can I read more? What keywords should I look out for?

I think that's the graphic I saw a while back, yes.

Thanks, I admit there wasn't a clear direction for the thread other than to stir the waters and give me new directions to read in. I'll check that stuff out.

The laws of the universe have been mostly the same for a very, very long time. The only time they were really that different (as far as we currently know) is the very early universe, which underwent a variety of phase transitions early on (examples include spontaneous symmetry breaking at the grand unification scale and electroweak scale as well as QCD confinment). But for the last 13 billion years, things have pretty much been business as usual (minus some nonlinear dynamics); the fundamental physics hasn't changed.