What proof is there that the laws of physics have always remained the same?

What proof is there that the laws of physics have always remained the same?

When we talk about shit like the big bang or evolution of the universe, we always just play the universe backwards with a constant set of physical laws. Why? It seems to me that one could imagine a huge variety of wacky laws that could have left the universe in its current state.

Other urls found in this thread:

popsci.com/science/article/2010-09/physics-laws-change-depending-when-and-where-you-are-new-study-says
youtube.com/watch?v=kjphM-NUvvc&list=PLVV0r6CmEsFzDA6mtmKQEgWfcIu49J4nN&index=109
arxiv.org/abs/1202.4758
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

1. No evidence that the laws change. Occam's Razor. "Do not multiply root causes unnecessarily" AKA "Simplest hypothesis is probably right."
2. Plenty of evidence that they don't change. Example: objects billions of lightyears away, hence billions of years in the past, show same spectral lines as matter does today. Planck's constant, fine-structure constant, etc. no different then.
3. Really hard to imagine other laws which are self-consistent. Example: Suppose Aristotle had been right. Heavier objects fall faster than light ones. A boulder falls faster than a brick. How fast does a boulder glued to a brick fall? Faster than the boulder alone (since it's now heavier)? Some rate between boulder and brick? What if, instead of glue, they're just tied together loosely? Or they're at the ends of a 5 ft string? A 10 ft string? Sooner or later, you run into a contradiction.

Imagine a universe based on "roadrunner physics" where you can walk off a cliff and not fall -- until you notice. Proposing alternative physical laws and imagining the consequences is how physicists eliminate absurdities before seeking funding for an experiment.

Well if they changed really you could have a new law that described the change. We seem to have a lot of empirical evidence they don't change too

we know nothing about "the universe". science is not about knowing shit, it's about creating models that fit the observations we can possibly obtain at a given time.

you're a fucking retard and should stop talking about your wikipedia pseudophilosophy to people

>What proof is there that the laws of physics have always remained the same?
The conservation of energy.

>1. No evidence that the laws change. Occam's Razor. "Do not multiply root causes unnecessarily" AKA "Simplest hypothesis is probably right."

Occam's razor is just bad science and philosophy. Its literally saying "I can't prove what I'm saying, but I like my explanation best"

>What proof is there that the laws of physics have always remained the same?
They don't. THe speed of light keeps changing, so we can assume other constants and rules change too. Universe just likes it the way it is, maybe to keep us alive.

>2. Plenty of evidence that they don't change. Example: objects billions of lightyears away, hence billions of years in the past, show same spectral lines as matter does today. Planck's constant, fine-structure constant, etc. no different then.

Unless whatever change occured in the physical laws shifts the wavelengths of all the radiation from other stars, such they are they consistent with current atomic physics. But that spectra we are obtaining now that we think came from a star that operates on known quantum physics, may have originally been a different spectra, originating from a different type of astronomical object no longer possible.

There's nothing wrong with Occam's razor It's not meant to be a proof for anything, it's just helpful to remember that all else being equal there isn't very good reason to go with a more convoluted explanation.

A particularly mind-bending (and controversial) physics paper surfaced in the past week that should make you feel pretty special. It seems the laws of physics can change after all, and it just so happens they're uniquely suited for us right here, right now.

>A team led by John Webb at the University of New South Wales, Australia, has been studying whether the fine structure constant, otherwise known as alpha, changes over time. Alpha is a special number that essentially describes the strength of the electromagnetic force. The famous physicist Richard Feynman called its value "one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics." If it is not 1/137.036, things fall apart.
popsci.com/science/article/2010-09/physics-laws-change-depending-when-and-where-you-are-new-study-says

"simple" and "convoluted" are unscientific qualitative words.

There is nothing more "simple" about a universe with static laws than one with dynamic laws.

There is no proof the laws can't and haven't changed.

The question is rather bad but some of the answers are even worse. Please stop being naive Platonists.

Problem of induction: You can't "prove" that the sun will rise tomorrow. What you can do is think to yourself
>I "know" has risen every day since I was born, so if I had to make a bet, then betting that the sun will rise tomorrow is the best choice.
You can't get more. For all intents and purposes, it would be insane to act as if tomorrow the sun wouldn't rise. But that still doesn't mean you can, in a logical sense, "conclude" anything about such things. You can conclude it in the colloquial sense.

Similarly, there is no "logical argument" against the theory that each and every electron in the universe follows its own rules (rules that differ from e.g. a theory like quantum electromechanics). But the compexity of such a theory, where we can't capture all the possibilities (sheer infinite parameters if we were to fit all behaviours into on picture) would be beyond what anybody can work it. Humans necessarily choose to mode the world in frameworks that are feasable in terms of expressionality.

"Conservation of energy" isn't some sort of natural law in the true sense, it's that those make for understandable theories and is one tool that people are equipted with, and it's put over all situations where it works, to the extent that it works.
We use e.g. field theories descibed by Lagrangians / energy densities because that's a versitile framework that we more or less understand. The supercomplicated math and theories that were to descibe nature better - if they are beyond what humans can practically express (even in terms of cardinality to even capture e.g. the parameters) - will never be used.

tl;dr all our physical knowledge are descriptions, and those are even heavily limited by what humans can work with.

Occam's razor isn't science. It's just a good rule of thumb for dealing with multiple possible explanations where all else is equal.
>There is nothing more "simple" about a universe with static laws than one with dynamic laws.
?????????????????????

besides brown eyes she is perfect

Which is simpler, a game of baseball or a game that starts out as baseball but then turns into chess, basketball, golf, and billiards?
Of course static is simpler you brainlet.

>?????????????????????
What? Too complex for your pea brain buddy?

No, just wondering how you could mistakenly believe an obviously more complicated scenario is somehow not more complicated.

Principle of Uniformity
The laws of nature are defined to be static or they are not laws of nature.
/life

Define complicated.

Physics isn't simple or complicated. It just is. You are using retarded creationist logic of "uhh i just don't see how you could get all this stuff from some goop and lightning. I bet god dun it, dat makes more sense to me"

There could be simple laws which would explain the dynamic change of laws through time.
>obviously more complicated
No it isn't buddy, trust me I'm studying compsci

They haven't. The funamental forces of nature didn't exist just after the big bang. They came to existance when the universe cooled.

>trust me I'm studying compsci
lol. I've been working as a software developer for the past decade, what's your point? That you learned big O notation last semester?

>trust me I'm studying compsci
is this the first ebin meme of 2018?

That something dynamic isn't more complex than static.
Yes, if it gets repeated enough.

>That something dynamic isn't more complex than static.
it is, trust me I'm studying compsci

Welp you got me, can't argue with that.

i don't know why but i've always been the biggest sucker for fatty arms on an altogether not-fat girl

youtube.com/watch?v=kjphM-NUvvc&list=PLVV0r6CmEsFzDA6mtmKQEgWfcIu49J4nN&index=109

There isn't any proof of this. In fact, alpha values may vary between galaxies, clusters or branches. Seems possible that each unit may have slight (or extreme who knows) variations on what's possible based on that value.
Probably not though

>Ctrl+f induction
Wow, took like what, 10+ posts? Pretty embarrassing for Veeky Forums, philosophy of science basics is literally an hour long read.

>What proof is there that the laws of physics have always remained the same?
Consistency. It would be pretty obvious that things have changed. In any case, you don't assume either you simply make models and don't pretend as though they encapsulate all, forever, or a not subject to dismissal or reform. Also, "laws of physics" are dependent on matter and its various forms. It's not like there are ethereal and objective rules, if you drastically change some matter it will behave very strangely (to your natural animal intuition and thinking informed by usual physics / life experience). Just look into stars, the beginnings of our universe, and the possible composition of the cores of planets, to demonstrate this.

>software developer
>compsci
Barely related.

The laws of physics are necessary static, because if they are not, there must be laws describing these variations of law, and you go back to static laws

>Consistency. It would be pretty obvious that things have changed.
arxiv.org/abs/1202.4758
What do you know? Physics is a fuzzy field and you cannot assume anything, other than the fact that what we know is kind of able to model the real world around us right now. Everything else is metaphysical at worst, philosophical at best. Yes, laws of physics could change, it seems that constants may change at the very least. The real answer is, we don't know enough. OP, please don't accept answers from brainlets who say it's impossible (but don't accept answers from popsci loving redditors who say anything is possible either)

>not understanding science
If the laws of physics change that means they're wrong and there are more general laws that are the real laws
and yes constants change like the Hubble constant but that's an empirical constant

>proof by induction
Brainlets, I swaer