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 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.

im mostly looking for feedback. what acdemic level is written in. more information. interesting thoughts. etc

Well, proofread it for repetition of phrases like "far fetched", "logical" and so on. But on to the more interesting stuff.
You are discussing the possibility that the laws of the universe are local rather than global, perfect hypothesis. May I suggest another example? If you understood gravity in the sense of Newton it's very hard to make sense out of light bending around massive objects, then one may be tempted to say that gravity is more of a local thing than a global one, in other words that gravity is not independent of the background. Now we know this is actually not the case and that gravity can be explained via the curvature of spacetime; one could say that the perceived local character of gravity is really the local character of spacetime, that the principles governing gravity (the equations of general relativity) are indeed constant.

Following this idea, it seems to me that the laws of the universe are nothing more than our attempts at collecting massive amounts of observations under one mathematical theory; if for some reason we discovered that somewhere some fundamental law of nature seems to be different, we'd probably be mystified until we collected more evidence, then our human nature would prompt us to try to explain all the seemingly different theories by one big overarching theory. So what we mean by a local law of the universe may not be clear after all.

One last thought, you mentioned that one potential piece of evidence for the nonconstancy of the laws of the universe is that it's clearly not uniform, that there are parts of it that look different from others. First of all, I think the general consensus is that the universe looks more or less the same in every direction. Second, the initial conditions for the universe were rather chaotic, huge density and temperature. Under those conditions a minor fluctuation (of a quantum character?) coupled with the huge concentration of matter in tiny spaces, combined with a butterfly effect could account for the non uniform quality of the universe. Again, I'm not claiming this is what happened, but you may want to google these ideas to make your argument stronger.

You mentioned a constant alpha describing how electrons bond, could you say how exactly a different alpha would lead to a radically different universe? To be precise, would hydrogen still form? How about oxygen?

You talked about the laws of the universe changing over regions opening up the possibility of alien life. Well ok, but even on earth people have discovered life in areas without virtually any light (so that light is not essential for life), in extremely high temperatures, in very extreme conditions. It seems that when we look at life in the deep parts of the oceans, we keep finding results that make us reexamine our assumptions about what's needed for life. Moreover, trying to answer what constitutes life is surprisingly hard. You said something about proteins being essential for life, you may want to restate that as essential for life as we know it.

You may want to take a look at anything by Brian Greene, or Stephen Hawking, if you haven't done so already. Sorry for the long post, but you got me thinking and it was fun to write this, best of luck on your assignment.

PS. To the people here who really really know about physics, kindly accept my apologies if I wrote something extraordinarily stupid, this is not my field but the topic was too interesting to pass on.

wow that was an extremely good response, i could tell you read the entire things, and i agree with most if not all of what you said and yes this is the first version of this essay. theres a lot to work on and it may not entirely be worth investingating.

that first paragraph went pretty much way over my head (i only have a high school background in science), i understand the how the concept of gravity and how it bends space time (much like a ball being dropped onto a sheet held by four people) if space was represented by a 3d plain . but beyond that...

your second paragraph seems at first glance to kill my point, but what im trying to say is that the universe may not operate under the same set of conditions uniformly

your third paragraph, i had an inkling what you were saying while i was writing it, but i couldnt really formulate a cognizant argument and brushed it off (to my shame, but yes it certainly is a point of contention, and you worded it in a way that i couldnt)

well im not to sure, and my form of research was mainly speculative thought, but i figured if the energy that requires hydrogen to oyxgen was different eons ago, maybe sometime, somewhere there could be an anomalous situtation where say iron could form complex organic life. and i admit this essay would be tremondously better if i had scientific proof to back it up (perhaps i shouldnt have deviated from orignial assumption that alpha has been changing over time)

regarding the 5th paragraph i guess i should have made clear the disctinction life and sentient life.

thank you for your insight pal.