Is it possible that nature laws constants changed over time

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the possibility that the fundamental constants of physics may have varied throughout the history of the universe. Participants explore theoretical implications, observational challenges, and philosophical considerations surrounding this idea.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that while current observations suggest no change in physical constants, it remains theoretically possible that they could have varied in the past.
  • One participant questions the observability of changes in constants, particularly in the context of light speed and its effects on existing and newly produced photons.
  • Another participant discusses the philosophical implications of asserting possibilities, referencing historical beliefs and the nature of scientific hypotheses.
  • Some participants mention that the vacuum energy of space may not be a constant and suggest that indirect methods could potentially reveal changes in constants over time.
  • Several prominent theorists, including Leonard Susskind and Victor Stenger, are cited as advocates for the idea that constants may vary across a multiverse framework.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on whether constants have changed or could be observed changing. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of current observational methods and the philosophical complexities of discussing possibilities versus established facts. The discussion also touches on the implications of theoretical frameworks like string theory.

TeCNoYoTTa
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
I am wondering ? is it possible that the constants that govern the laws of physics was different during other periods of our universe history ?
 
Space news on Phys.org
It is possible. So far all observations concerning this issue have indicated no change, but experimentalists keep looking.
 
mathman said:
It is possible. So far all observations concerning this issue have indicated no change, but experimentalists keep looking.

Thanks, but is it really possible to observe such thing ?
for example if the light speed in the beginning of the universe was different, then suddenly the already existing photons and the newly produced photons acted based on a different speed. Is such thing observable ?
 
TeCNoYoTTa said:
I am wondering ? is it possible that the constants that govern the laws of physics was different during other periods of our universe history ?
I believe that there is an entire philosophy behind questions which start off with Is it possible... This philosophy is based on the principle that no observation is logically inconsistent. What does that mean in practice? It means that we can't merely say with absolute certainty that certain things are true or false because its conceivable that some day, in some way an observation could prove something to be true where it was postulated to be false in the past. For example: Suppose someone who lived in the days when it was accepted that the Earth was flat. The hypothesis then was the Earth was flat and if one asked "Is the Earth flat?" the one the person who answered in the positive was doing so in agreement with the hypothesis of that day. Not let's consider the question "Is the Earth a sphere" but asked today. The answer is "Yes." But how would one answer "Is it possible that the Earth is flat?" if it was also asked today? I would say not. It's not possible.

I'm forming this idea from an insight shared in the article Possibility of Faster-Than-Light Particles by G. Feinberg, Physical Review, July 25, 1967. The author writes
It is perhaps worthwhile noting that particles which travel faster than light d not involve logical inconsistencies. Indeed, no observation can be logically inconsistent.*
The footnote reads I am in debt to Dr. M. Tausner for this remark.

So let’s be clear that if we say that something is possible it does not mean that it's true or a fact. What we may agree is possible may in fact be wrong. Is it possible that the president had only eggs for breakfast? Yes. Is it possible that the president had only bacon for breakfast? Yes.

But all in all we have to be concerned with where this really gets us to. I.e. if a researcher believes that he can create a free-energy machine and we agree that such a thing is possible (in the sense that it's possible for a law of thermodynamics to be wrong) it doesn't mean we should believe it.

There is a fruitcake on one of those “ancient aliens” programs that comes on TV every now and then. Erik Van Daniken is one of them. He starts posing questions “Is it possible that aliens visited our ancestors and built runways in the mountains and that’s where those straight lines we see there come from?” or “Is it possible that all those artworks that are only visible to beings in the air were drawn for ancient aliens? After all they can only be seen from high up in the air!”

What Van Daniken neglects to say is that ancient people had gods which they worshipped and they believed that those gods resided in the “heavens.”
 
Last edited:
It is definitely possible. In the case of the vacuum energy of space, we are pretty sure it is a non-constant constant. I am not sure if this could be observed directly, but I imagine there would be clever indirect ways we might deduce such a thing, at least for some variables.

The idea that constants change over space and time is in fact advocated by several prominent theorist including Leonard Susskind, Victor Stenger, and others. In these cases, the "universe" means the string-theory multiverse, and across this universe the constants of nature take on different values in different places in space, and can change over time.

Susskind has a great book on this called "the Cosmic Landscape".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K