infidelguy
2009-01-08, 21:50
I just wrote an essay regarding new developments with the laws of nature.
Since the scientific revolution headed by Newton and Galileo, philosophy has evolved from more arcane ideologies into more scientific and 'logical' ideas. This evolution of philosophy can be likened to the evolution of cavement to the men of today. These more 'scientific' ideologies have evolved from the 'idea' worlds of Plato to "measure[ing] the strength with sub atomic particles interact with one another [1]" In a sense science and philosophy are now one in the same. Today the most conventional view on how the universe operates is governed by so-called laws that permeate throughout the universe. These laws such as gravity, thermodynamics, etc were thought to be universal constants. However according to promising research, the laws of physics may not be as constant as previously believed. This study suggests that a very important universal constant known as alpha has been slowly changing over the eons and "threatens to shake up our very notions of reality" [2]" In a very Star Trek like manner, this interesting study adds some spice to the bland and boring world of universla constants and laws. If the laws of phsyics are changing over slowly over time, what does this say about our idea that the laws of nature are homogenous and constant throughout the universe? Although these ideas seem to throw your precepts of the universe out the window, these are not new ideas. Since the 1930's, physicists have been coming up with mathematical theories that suggest that the laws of physics may not be entirely concrete. These ideas have been proposed by many physicists, most notably Paul Dirac, one of the founders of quantum phsyics and widely regarded as one of the greatest physicists of all time.
Imagine that you are Sir Isaac Newton, sitting under an apple tree thinking about how the world operates, and as the story goes an apple falls on his head. Imagine that another apple falls but instead of doing as all apples that fall from trees do, this apple floats upwards. This seems quite absurd, but this story illustrates the idea of how eternal and unchanging the laws of physics are to us. Since the time of Newton, most respecatable scientists believed that the universe "was governed by strict natural laws that can be discovered and formalized by means of scientific observation and experiment [3]" . However one only has to look to the other so called 'constants of the universe' that have been proven to exist when the science of the day said otherwise (i.e dark matter [4]) Two years ago astrophysicists discovered that the universal cosntant alpha may have changed over time. Alpha, is a measurement of the strength in which electrons bond wihtin atoms and molecules (such as the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen in water) This shakes the very foundations of how we view our universe. Also, i am to understand, that Alpha is a 'dimension-less' constant which makes it more 'fundamental' than constants such as the strength of gravity, or the speed of light. This study could change the way we think the universe works. It is generally assumed that the leading view was that the universe is homogenous or completley the same in the ways the 'laws of nature' apply. This is assumed by the Perfect Cosmological Principle and the Antrophic Cosmological Principle [5]. However there are quite compelling arguments that say that the laws of nature may apply differently to different regions of the universe. Take for instance the fact that the unvierse contains several different structures such as stars, galaxies, clustes, superclusters [6]. If you were to look at an image of a small part of the observable universe you would see galaxies of different colors here and there and maybe a supercluster in a random corner. If the laws of physics are constant throughout the universe how did these structures form in such unique ways? It is a strange concept, but in light of this new study, how outlandish does it really seem? It seems a logical step to make that to assume that if the constants of the universe change with time, the cosntants of the universe cna change within different regions of the universe. Would we really be blashpheming against some infallible law of physics to hold such a belief? I think not. These so-called laws of phsyics that we think are so concrete are not s concrete as previously believed. Even now, physicists are struggling to discover a 'theory of everything' which unifies all the known natural forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong) [7]. At first it seems that this theory collides with the most widely accepted theory of the universe, the big bang theory, but that is simply not so. There is an intersting analogy that helps bring aobut sense to my seemingly dismal theory. Pretend that there is a sentient being living inside a loaf of bread that is rising, continually expanding at a uniform and constant rate. But in this loaf of bread there is obvious small structure within the bread, perhaps an air bubble is formed, perhaps a sentient species (these small structures represent areas where the laws of nature apply differently). So according to this analogy, on the large scale the universe is expanding at a uniform rate and the air bubble or raisin moves along with the expansiopn but is still operating under their own laws of physics. At this point I had to stop and think. Since my understandings of these concepts are elementary at best and since I am no astrophysicist there may be some horrible equation proving me wrong. However in the sense of conventional logic it seems logical to say that if it isnt far fetched to say tha tthe laws of nature can change over time, that it isnt far fetched to say that the laws of nature can change geographically as well.
WHen it comes to the laws of nature there are two main principles theories. The theories being: the Regularity theory and the necessitarianism theory [8] REgularists believe that the laws of nature are only statments of the uniformities or regualrities of the universe. To quote " they are mere descriptions of the way the world is". Regularists refer to the laws of the universe , to "relflect the way we speak about it". However to the necessitarians, the laws of nature are physicially necessary and the antural world obeys these laws of nature. An example used was that of the electron. An electron gives off a certain electrical charge becasue there is a law of the nature to that effect. It is the nature of the electron, by necessity to give off that charge. TO make the disctinction between the two theories more clear, here is another example, Let us say it started to rain chocolate chips. It is true that both regularists and necessistarians would agree that it is impossible. However regularits are only making the factual claim that there is no such occurance in the past or present. They are not saying there could be no such occurence. However to the necessitarians, it is a physical impossibility that violates the laws that govern the universe. Are the laws of nature a physical necessity that are infallible? Or are they merely the best way to describe the universe as we think of it today. I am more inclined to bleive that the laws of anture are not set in stone, and I think that this new study proves this idea...
Now the philosophical implications of this study are quite interesting. As I was thinking about how this could shape our notion of reality. THe first thought I had on the subject must ahve been spurred on by Star Trek, it might have even been an episode. If the laws of nature are different in various regions of the unvierse that the possiblity of there being alien life must surely increase. Since we are carbon life forms and we exist in the unvierse we can assume taht given the right conditions life forms based on carbon can exist elsewhere in the universe (where the same laws of nature exist). According to the laws of nature (in our region of space ) it is impossible for , say, an iron based life form. Only carbon can create orgnaic molecules liek proteins and such necessary for life. However if the laws of physics were different in a region elsewhere where maybe carbon doesnt form 4 bonds or 'hybridize'. Maybe in this unvierse Arsenic can sustain life. Perhaps there are arsenic or iron based life froms somehwere in the universe. It seems farfetched but it is still an interesting thought.
On a more serious note, this is an amazing discovery. And although it is true that there could be many sources of erroe and scientists could have been mistaken. I like to think the universe is more exciting than the way it is percieved now. According to conventional laws of physics, it would take 2.5 million years, travelling at the speed of ligth to reach the nearest galaxy.
Or even 20 years to get to the newly discovered earth like planet (Gliese 281) [9] TO me, that is extremely disconcerting and this new theory brings hope.
Well thats my essay, i hope u enjoyed reading and im interested to hear some feedback (mainly, at what academic level is this on) / more information on the topic . i have sources but im reluctant to post them for fear for plaigarism, but you can ask.
Since the scientific revolution headed by Newton and Galileo, philosophy has evolved from more arcane ideologies into more scientific and 'logical' ideas. This evolution of philosophy can be likened to the evolution of cavement to the men of today. These more 'scientific' ideologies have evolved from the 'idea' worlds of Plato to "measure[ing] the strength with sub atomic particles interact with one another [1]" In a sense science and philosophy are now one in the same. Today the most conventional view on how the universe operates is governed by so-called laws that permeate throughout the universe. These laws such as gravity, thermodynamics, etc were thought to be universal constants. However according to promising research, the laws of physics may not be as constant as previously believed. This study suggests that a very important universal constant known as alpha has been slowly changing over the eons and "threatens to shake up our very notions of reality" [2]" In a very Star Trek like manner, this interesting study adds some spice to the bland and boring world of universla constants and laws. If the laws of phsyics are changing over slowly over time, what does this say about our idea that the laws of nature are homogenous and constant throughout the universe? Although these ideas seem to throw your precepts of the universe out the window, these are not new ideas. Since the 1930's, physicists have been coming up with mathematical theories that suggest that the laws of physics may not be entirely concrete. These ideas have been proposed by many physicists, most notably Paul Dirac, one of the founders of quantum phsyics and widely regarded as one of the greatest physicists of all time.
Imagine that you are Sir Isaac Newton, sitting under an apple tree thinking about how the world operates, and as the story goes an apple falls on his head. Imagine that another apple falls but instead of doing as all apples that fall from trees do, this apple floats upwards. This seems quite absurd, but this story illustrates the idea of how eternal and unchanging the laws of physics are to us. Since the time of Newton, most respecatable scientists believed that the universe "was governed by strict natural laws that can be discovered and formalized by means of scientific observation and experiment [3]" . However one only has to look to the other so called 'constants of the universe' that have been proven to exist when the science of the day said otherwise (i.e dark matter [4]) Two years ago astrophysicists discovered that the universal cosntant alpha may have changed over time. Alpha, is a measurement of the strength in which electrons bond wihtin atoms and molecules (such as the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen in water) This shakes the very foundations of how we view our universe. Also, i am to understand, that Alpha is a 'dimension-less' constant which makes it more 'fundamental' than constants such as the strength of gravity, or the speed of light. This study could change the way we think the universe works. It is generally assumed that the leading view was that the universe is homogenous or completley the same in the ways the 'laws of nature' apply. This is assumed by the Perfect Cosmological Principle and the Antrophic Cosmological Principle [5]. However there are quite compelling arguments that say that the laws of nature may apply differently to different regions of the universe. Take for instance the fact that the unvierse contains several different structures such as stars, galaxies, clustes, superclusters [6]. If you were to look at an image of a small part of the observable universe you would see galaxies of different colors here and there and maybe a supercluster in a random corner. If the laws of physics are constant throughout the universe how did these structures form in such unique ways? It is a strange concept, but in light of this new study, how outlandish does it really seem? It seems a logical step to make that to assume that if the constants of the universe change with time, the cosntants of the universe cna change within different regions of the universe. Would we really be blashpheming against some infallible law of physics to hold such a belief? I think not. These so-called laws of phsyics that we think are so concrete are not s concrete as previously believed. Even now, physicists are struggling to discover a 'theory of everything' which unifies all the known natural forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong) [7]. At first it seems that this theory collides with the most widely accepted theory of the universe, the big bang theory, but that is simply not so. There is an intersting analogy that helps bring aobut sense to my seemingly dismal theory. Pretend that there is a sentient being living inside a loaf of bread that is rising, continually expanding at a uniform and constant rate. But in this loaf of bread there is obvious small structure within the bread, perhaps an air bubble is formed, perhaps a sentient species (these small structures represent areas where the laws of nature apply differently). So according to this analogy, on the large scale the universe is expanding at a uniform rate and the air bubble or raisin moves along with the expansiopn but is still operating under their own laws of physics. At this point I had to stop and think. Since my understandings of these concepts are elementary at best and since I am no astrophysicist there may be some horrible equation proving me wrong. However in the sense of conventional logic it seems logical to say that if it isnt far fetched to say tha tthe laws of nature can change over time, that it isnt far fetched to say that the laws of nature can change geographically as well.
WHen it comes to the laws of nature there are two main principles theories. The theories being: the Regularity theory and the necessitarianism theory [8] REgularists believe that the laws of nature are only statments of the uniformities or regualrities of the universe. To quote " they are mere descriptions of the way the world is". Regularists refer to the laws of the universe , to "relflect the way we speak about it". However to the necessitarians, the laws of nature are physicially necessary and the antural world obeys these laws of nature. An example used was that of the electron. An electron gives off a certain electrical charge becasue there is a law of the nature to that effect. It is the nature of the electron, by necessity to give off that charge. TO make the disctinction between the two theories more clear, here is another example, Let us say it started to rain chocolate chips. It is true that both regularists and necessistarians would agree that it is impossible. However regularits are only making the factual claim that there is no such occurance in the past or present. They are not saying there could be no such occurence. However to the necessitarians, it is a physical impossibility that violates the laws that govern the universe. Are the laws of nature a physical necessity that are infallible? Or are they merely the best way to describe the universe as we think of it today. I am more inclined to bleive that the laws of anture are not set in stone, and I think that this new study proves this idea...
Now the philosophical implications of this study are quite interesting. As I was thinking about how this could shape our notion of reality. THe first thought I had on the subject must ahve been spurred on by Star Trek, it might have even been an episode. If the laws of nature are different in various regions of the unvierse that the possiblity of there being alien life must surely increase. Since we are carbon life forms and we exist in the unvierse we can assume taht given the right conditions life forms based on carbon can exist elsewhere in the universe (where the same laws of nature exist). According to the laws of nature (in our region of space ) it is impossible for , say, an iron based life form. Only carbon can create orgnaic molecules liek proteins and such necessary for life. However if the laws of physics were different in a region elsewhere where maybe carbon doesnt form 4 bonds or 'hybridize'. Maybe in this unvierse Arsenic can sustain life. Perhaps there are arsenic or iron based life froms somehwere in the universe. It seems farfetched but it is still an interesting thought.
On a more serious note, this is an amazing discovery. And although it is true that there could be many sources of erroe and scientists could have been mistaken. I like to think the universe is more exciting than the way it is percieved now. According to conventional laws of physics, it would take 2.5 million years, travelling at the speed of ligth to reach the nearest galaxy.
Or even 20 years to get to the newly discovered earth like planet (Gliese 281) [9] TO me, that is extremely disconcerting and this new theory brings hope.
Well thats my essay, i hope u enjoyed reading and im interested to hear some feedback (mainly, at what academic level is this on) / more information on the topic . i have sources but im reluctant to post them for fear for plaigarism, but you can ask.