Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #628963 > unrolled thread

Variations in laws of nature

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Variations in laws of nature alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-04-14 03:06 -0700
    Re: Variations in laws of nature Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 13:35 +0200
      Re: Variations in laws of nature poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 22:16 -0700
        Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 05:25 -0700
    Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:25 -0500
      Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:12 -0700
        Re: Variations in laws of nature moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-14 15:26 +0000
          Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:39 -0700
            Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 13:10 -0500
        Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 13:08 -0500
          Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 13:41 -0700
            Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 16:47 -0500
              Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 16:41 -0700
                Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 16:46 -0700
                  Re: Variations in laws of nature moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-15 03:04 +0000
                Re: Variations in laws of nature benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-14 20:16 -0400
                Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 15:31 -0500
                  Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 14:52 -0700
                    Re: Variations in laws of nature moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-16 04:36 +0000
                    Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 22:09 -0500
                      Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 06:03 -0500
                        Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 05:33 -0700
                          Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 07:49 -0500
                            Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 05:56 -0700
                              Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 06:09 -0700
                                Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 08:40 -0500
                                Re: Variations in laws of nature moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-17 15:25 +0000
                                  Re: Variations in laws of nature "F.Art.Ingatu" <F.Art.Ingatu@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-17 10:09 -0700
                              Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 08:37 -0500
                                Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 06:57 -0700
                                  Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 07:37 -0700
                                    Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 15:21 -0500
                                  Re: Variations in laws of nature Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 10:23 -0700
                                    Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 10:53 -0700
                                      Re: Variations in laws of nature moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-17 19:59 +0000
                                      Re: Variations in laws of nature Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 07:46 -0700
                                  Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 15:15 -0500
                                    Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 08:29 -0700
                                      Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 10:39 -0500
                                        Re: Variations in laws of nature Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 10:40 -0500
                                Re: Variations in laws of nature moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-17 15:33 +0000
            Re: Variations in laws of nature Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 02:57 -0700
              Re: Variations in laws of nature john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 05:29 -0700
    Re: Variations in laws of nature Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-04-14 10:18 -0500
    Variations in laws of nature HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:53 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#628963 — Variations in laws of nature

I came across an interesting idea in an essay by a physicist.  He said that the laws of nature can change over time.  That maybe, the laws of nature were different before the Big Bang.  And if we are living in a multiverse, the laws of nature are different in different universes.

There is nothing fundamental about the laws of nature in our universe.  But maybe the laws of nature are special, in that they allow complex structures to form, like life, and planets.

But can the laws of nature vary inside our universe in our time?

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#628969

Dne 14/04/2017 v 12:06 alal65536@gmail.com napsal(a):
> [...]
> But can the laws of nature vary inside our universe in our time?
> 
I am afraid we cannot say until we observe it.
What we know it has not been observed yet.

What is known is mathematically proven
general Noether ( First ) theorem
about relation of symmetries and conservation laws.

As I understand it,
if time did not have translational symmetry,
i,e law may change over time,
energy conservation law would not be valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxlHLqJ9I0A
http://phys.columbia.edu/~nicolis/NewFiles/Noether_theorem.pdf
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath564/kmath564.htm


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629268

On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 2:35:43 PM UTC+3, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 14/04/2017 v 12:06 alal65536@gmail.com napsal(a):
> > [...]
> > But can the laws of nature vary inside our universe in our time?
> > 
> I am afraid we cannot say until we observe it.
> What we know it has not been observed yet.
> 
> What is known is mathematically proven
> general Noether ( First ) theorem
> about relation of symmetries and conservation laws.
> 
> As I understand it,
> if time did not have translational symmetry,
> i,e law may change over time,
> energy conservation law would not be valid.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxlHLqJ9I0A
> http://phys.columbia.edu/~nicolis/NewFiles/Noether_theorem.pdf
> http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath564/kmath564.htm
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> 
> A wise man guards words he says,
> as they say about him more,
> than he says about the subject.
=======================
laws of physics might be changing

BUT NOT ***THE  MOST BASIC OF THERM** !!
or else we get complete chaos !!!!


TIA
Y.Porat
====================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629283

Y
"laws of physics might be changing "

No laws change.

QM is puke and snot drivel, and that stuff stays
slimy when wet.
Size scales change wrt Time as one 
goes up or down within a Fractal layer.
The Laws for electrons' movement is exactly 
the same as for planets and stars.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#628971

On 4/14/2017 5:06 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> I came across an interesting idea in an essay by a physicist.  He said that the laws of nature can
> change over time.  That maybe, the laws of nature were different before the Big Bang.  And if we
> are living in a multiverse, the laws of nature are different in different universes.
>
> There is nothing fundamental about the laws of nature in our universe.  But maybe the laws of
> nature are special, in that they allow complex structures to form, like life, and planets.

This is known as the anthropic principle. In some sense these laws are 
not special. But in another sense, they are special in the way that they 
allowed intelligent life to form to discover those laws. In another 
universe, perhaps, the laws are different enough that there would be no 
intelligent life to discover them.

>
> But can the laws of nature vary inside our universe in our time?

There's a couple of thoughts here. One is that there are constants in 
nature that are not determined by a law but have to be empirically 
measured. Planck's constant is an example. There have been hypotheses 
that ask what the implications would be if one or more of these 
empirical constants changed over time.

Another thought is pretty well known, called spontaneous symmetry 
breaking. This is the apparent loss of a symmetry at a lower energy 
scale that prevailed at a higher energy. One solid example of this is 
weak and electromagnetic interactions. Everything we see about them at 
ordinary energy scales says these are two completely distinct 
fundamental forces. But it's been shown that these are extremely likely 
to be just facets of one electroweak interaction, where at higher 
energies, the two are indistinguishable. So in this sense, the laws of 
physics changed in a subtle way at the energy of spontaneous symmetry 
breaking.

>
> Abhinav Lal
> Writer & Investor
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#628983

Odd
speculated, including things like "other universes".
Garbage in, garbage out- too much information, no librarian, no catalogue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#628985

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Garbage in, garbage out- too much information, no librarian, no catalogue.

Yup. That definitely sounds like your posts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#628987

Oh no!
Michael is stalking.
Funny how you insisted on symmetry, symmetry, symmetry, the whole time I was constructing
 http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF  
 and then when I did it, that's not important any more.
Kinda slimy, Michael 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#628998

On 4/14/2017 10:39 AM, john wrote:
> Oh no!
> Michael is stalking.

About the same as you stalked me, no?

> Funny how you insisted on symmetry, symmetry, symmetry, the whole time I was constructing
>  http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF
>  and then when I did it, that's not important any more.
> Kinda slimy, Michael
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#628997

On 4/14/2017 10:12 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> speculated, including things like "other universes".

Yes, it's a speculation.

> Garbage in, garbage out- too much information, no
> librarian, no catalogue.
>

My understanding of your thinking is that "other universes" must be 
garbage because a human-invented word like "universe" forbids that from 
happening.


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629027

Odd
"
My understanding of your thinking is that "other universes" must be 
garbage because a human-invented word like "universe" forbids that from 
happening. "

My understanding is that physicists make up
meanings for words as part of the smoke and
mirrors. Universe no longer means everything,
spin no longer means spin.
Tell me, Odd, where and why is the division point
between this Universe and that Universe and 
what lies between? You're spouting hogwash
that you read somewhere and just took at face
value.
Rules apply to Big and small, alike. Electrons and
every other subparticle have to account for every
change. 
Sorry to kill ur fantasy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629033

On 4/14/2017 3:41 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
> My understanding of your thinking is that "other universes" must be
> garbage because a human-invented word like "universe" forbids that from
> happening. "
>
> My understanding is that physicists make up
> meanings for words as part of the smoke and
> mirrors. Universe no longer means everything,
> spin no longer means spin.

It's not smoke and mirrors, John. It's called specialized jargon.
It's allowed, John -- really. Happens in every specialized field. Don't 
get flustered or bitch that it shouldn't happen. Just know it does and 
put it on your list of things to get acquainted with when you start to 
dive into a field.

> Tell me, Odd, where and why is the division point
> between this Universe and that Universe and
> what lies between? You're spouting hogwash
> that you read somewhere and just took at face
> value.

?? Your question makes no sense. The difference between this universe 
and a different one is not a matter of different location. Location as 
you understand it only applies to THIS universe.

Do you understand how something can be infinite in extent and not 
include everything?

> Rules apply to Big and small, alike. Electrons and
> every other subparticle have to account for every
> change.

I don't get your statement that "rules apply to big and small, alike". 
Is this a "rule" that you made up?
You do know that things behave differently at different scales, right? 
RIGHT?

> Sorry to kill ur fantasy
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629050

Odd
"
Is this a "rule" that you made up? 
You do know that things behave differently at different scales, right? 
RIGHT? 
"
Oy.
Fantasy alive and well in Oddland 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629053

Okay Odd says the rules change
at a certain size scale.
What size is that and why would you say
this phenomenon takes place, herr profesor?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629079

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Okay Odd says the rules change
>at a certain size scale.
>What size is that and why would you say
>this phenomenon takes place, herr profesor?

Try the scale of your everyday existence with objects and substances like
liquids and gases vs. the atomic scale where all is atoms and molecules.  
Then even smaller, everything is electrons and nuclei.  Even smaller are
protons and neutrons (and electrons). And even smaller are quarks and
gluons.  And then even smaller... There is no smaller, because smallest is
smallest! Hahahahahaha!  That simple fact drives you nuts, doesn't it!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629057

On 4/14/2017 7:41 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
> Is this a "rule" that you made up?
> You do know that things behave differently at different scales, right?
> RIGHT?
> "
> Oy.
> Fantasy alive and well in Oddland
>
Hey John, doesn't Odd know that Maxwell's equations are invariant with 
scale and that all matter is electromagnetic? He needs to read a few of 
those textbooks he keeps suggesting to others.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629180

On 4/14/2017 6:41 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
> Is this a "rule" that you made up?
> You do know that things behave differently at different scales, right?
> RIGHT?
> "
> Oy.
> Fantasy alive and well in Oddland
>

No, really, John. It's true. That was the revelation of Planck, that 
there is a scale where the difference occurs. Maxwell's theory, for 
example, only works on a scale that is large compared to Planck's scale. 
It assumes smoothness that isn't really there, much like at a certain 
scale, there seems to be a smoothness to polished glass or metal that 
isn't really there. At the Planck scale, the Maxwell theory no longer 
works well at all, and quantum electrodynamics is the only theory that 
works at all well.

Do not ASSUME that the same laws work at all scales, just because you'd 
like it to be so. You have to put subject ANY and ALL assumptions to 
experimental test.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629185

Odd
"
Do not ASSUME that the same laws work at all scales, just because you'd 
like it to be so. You have to put subject ANY and ALL assumptions to 
experimental test. 
"
Pretty hard to get a good picture at
the attoseconds scale.
The new attophysics will elucidate atoms.
They will be seen to be discs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629264

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>The new attophysics will elucidate atoms.
>They will be seen to be discs.

This post brought to you by the letters O, C and D.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629446

On 4/15/2017 4:52 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
> Do not ASSUME that the same laws work at all scales, just because you'd
> like it to be so. You have to put subject ANY and ALL assumptions to
> experimental test.
> "
> Pretty hard to get a good picture at
> the attoseconds scale.
> The new attophysics will elucidate atoms.
> They will be seen to be discs.
>

If you say so, John. Me, I'll wait til the data are in.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web