Could the Laws of Physics Be Proportional to Entropy?

[pasulya]

Hello, First of all, I’m not a mathematician or a physicist — I don’t know the equations or formal laws. Out of curiosity, I’ve been trying to understand entropy in detail, and for the past few days I’ve been reading papers and watching science communication channels like Veritasium on YouTube.

Then a series of questions came to my mind. Maybe you know the answer and can guide me, or maybe my question is simply a matter of perspective that I haven’t been able to resolve. My questions might sound naïve or even funny — I’m aware this isn’t my field of study. Please bear with me, and thank you for your understanding.

Here’s my question:
The Big Bang began with a very low-entropy and highly ordered state. This low entropy influenced how the laws of physics “solidified” during the universe’s expansion and cooling.

If entropy had started out differently:

• The rate of cosmic expansion might have been different,
• The way forces (electromagnetic, nuclear, etc.) separated could have changed,
• In other words, some of the formulas and structures we observe today might not exist in their current form.

A simple analogy:
Think about ice crystals. If you cool water slowly, you get neat, symmetric crystals. If you cool it rapidly or irregularly, the crystal structure becomes distorted. The Big Bang’s entropy feels similar — like the “cooling rate” that set the pattern. If the initial entropy were different, perhaps the laws themselves would have crystallized differently.

So my main question is:
Did the low-entropy initial condition of the universe directly determine how the laws of physics solidified during the Big Bang? Could it be that in the very early universe (or pre–Big Bang), certain laws behaved differently or were “selectable”?

And if so, what determined that selection? At the beginning, the universe was extremely ordered in terms of energy and matter distribution (low entropy), yet physically undefined in terms of space, time, and forces (quantum chaos).

As the universe expanded and cooled, stable and consistent laws emerged.

So as I understand it:
The early universe was a smooth but undefined ocean of energy — containing all potential directions, but not yet “decided” which way to flow.

If the initial entropy had been different, perhaps the fundamental laws and force separations would also have been different. I couldn’t find a clear source explaining this idea.

Another question:
Since the universe’s entropy keeps increasing... could the laws of physics change a billion years from now? Or once that initial state was set, do the laws (quantum mechanics, relativity, conservation of energy, etc.) remain permanently fixed, even as the universe cools and entropy rises?

You might say these are separate things —

• Entropy: the disorder of the universe, the decline of usable energy, the spread of galaxies and particles.
• Physical laws: the “rules of the game” like energy, momentum, and quantum behavior.
  That makes sense — but somehow they feel connected, as if one cannot fully exist without the other.

To me, it feels like this:

The laws of physics might not be timeless, independent principles — but rather the product of the universe’s own thermal and entropic state.
As the universe evolves, the form of its laws might evolve too.

For example, a billion years from now, the universe will be colder and more diffuse.
If entropy approaches its maximum, subatomic processes might adapt accordingly — maybe:

• The speed of light could shift slightly (as vacuum energy density decreases),
• The balance of forces (e.g. electromagnetic vs. gravitational) might alter,
• Even the concept of time could lose its thermodynamic direction (since entropy would no longer increase).

Could it be that physical laws are not absolutely fixed, but conditioned by the universe’s current level of order?

There may be some points where I learned incorrectly, if so, I apologize.
I’m probably mistaken somewhere — so, what should I learn or read to explore this properly?

 

[PeroK]

I’m probably mistaken somewhere — so, what should I learn or read to explore this properly?

The very early universe is open to speculation. There is no evidence that the laws of physics change over time. Unless you have some evidence and a workable theory, then saying "maybe this and maybe that" is not what physics is about. Physics isn't about word play. It's about testable theories and experimental results.

 

[sbrothy]

A little nudge here, something to discuss from (I may be wrong but at least the first seems to have >300 citations!):

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2058-7058/16/4/38/pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0006051



EDIT: Oh, oops. That was this one:

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.52.489

Sorry. I think String Theory isn't all it's "hyped" up to be, then again I'm also no expert. Just wanted to tease a little.

 

[berkeman]

Thread is closed for Moderation.

 

[PeterDonis]

The Big Bang began with a very low-entropy and highly ordered state.

According to our best current model, yes.

This low entropy influenced how the laws of physics “solidified” during the universe’s expansion and cooling.

This is not part of our best current model. It's speculation (and it doesn't even apply to the "Big Bang" state, it applies earlier, even before inflation in inflationary models). More generally, entropy changing is not the same thing as the laws of physics changing. Indeed, our normal model of entropy changing (increasing as the universe expands and clumps gravitationally, for example) requires that the laws of physics stay the same--otherwise we wouldn't know what laws to use to build the model.

 

[PeterDonis]

This thread will remain closed since the OP is based on a fundamental misconception.

Also, @pasulya, two points for future reference:

First, questions about physics belong in one of the physics subforums, not General Discussion. Any discussion of proposals in the literature about the laws of physics changing belongs in the Beyond the Standard Models subforum.

Second, any discussion of a question about physics needs to be based on valid references--textbooks or peer-reviewed papers. Videos are not generally valid references; if a video has good material in it, it should give you references to the textbooks or peer-reviewed papers where it got that material, and you can then go and read those and give them as references. But there has to be some valid basis for discussion.