/sci/ - Science & Math

have they changed during the course of this universe, or only prior to this universe?

>>6184362
>>>/420chan/

>>6184362
how were they different?

more importantly, how do you know?

>>6184366

implying we want serious sci discussion here...
implying /sci/ is capable or comparable

>>6184368

the big bang was a transition state, the laws break down at the singularity, logically a transition occurred where the laws were different

check the facts.

>>6184362
Only applies to plebs that map truths by graphic multiplications

>>6184362
>prior to or during the singularity there was no time
>laws change prior to or during the singularity
>laws didn't change over time

well op, you made it very easy for us this time

>>6184381
right now in black holes, the laws are different

>>6184393
nope. There is no "right now" in black holes, since time does not exist within a black hole
>making it this easy

>>6184392

>>6184395
my face exactly

>>6184395
>>6184392

time is before the singularity of course, deduce the rest

>>6184394
>time does not exist within a black hole

black holes exist in time, nothing has "time within it" -- check the data

>>6184394

this is false, but even if it were true it implies the opposite of what you think.

time in black hole = 0
time outside black hole = 1, 2, 3 , 4...

clearly these are different temporal states

>>6184409
black holes exist within an even horizon which you could say shut it out from our universe. No information can come from a black hole. so it is perfectly isolated.

>>6184416

>completely isolated
>shut out of the universe

...

All of this is debatably incorrect, because 'time' really doesn't exist.
But it does.

>>6184416
Please, show us your work, then collect your nobel prize.

How did gravity evoluve!

>>6184456
muffins

>>6184381
The laws of physics cannot describe a singularity so claiming there was a singularity in the big bang is baseless. In any case the fact our laws of physics break down does not imply the true laws of the universe are changed.

>>6184456
Gravity didn't evolve, moron.

It was intelligently designed.

Saying the laws of physics change over time because they were different before the big bang is exactly analogous to saying that the laws of physics change when you change from throwing a ball on the surface of the earth to throwing a ball in a vacuum chamber.
It's not the laws of physics that change, It's the macroscopic statistical laws, because you've changed the circumstances, not because the laws governing the circumstances have changed.

can you post the image without the 'Deal with it' please

they will change again after the technological singularity has occurred and the universe has been "woken up"

OP, do you think the laws of physics change in a predictable way?
If yes, then it means the laws of physics can be completed to take into account this evolution, and you get new laws of physics that don't change over time
If no, then it means physics is worthless: it cannot tell us antyhing about the future and the past since all we can observe is in the present. Any past study is suspicious because it was done with the "before" laws that have no reason to be the same today. This hypothesis disagrees completely with the Ockham's razor principle.

For your culture, pleb :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

>>6184491
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/01/quasars-reveal-that-laws-of-nature-change-over-time.html

Precise measurements on the light from distant quasars suggest that the value of the fine-structure constant may have changed over the history of the universe. If the quasar results are eventually confirmed, our concepts of space and time are sure to change our fundamental understanding of the universe.

The fine-structure constant, or alpha, is the coupling constant for the electromagnetic force. If alpha were just 4% bigger or smaller than it is, stars wouldn't be able to make carbon and oxygen, which would have made it impossible for life as we know it in our universe to exist.

You are right OP, actually there's evidence pointing that law of physics may vary not only over time but space too, of course the variation may not be as big as you may think

>>6184518

this

>>6184522
I was gonna make the same argument in this thread m8, good job

>>6184456
inb4 that one picture of the annoying bitch with blue hair gets used to ghost bump this thread 1 million times

>>6184536
If the fine structure constant changes over time then chances are that change is governed by some deeper law, which is my point. Of course it may be possible that I'm wrong and there somehow is no deeper underlying law, but that seems historically and physically a lot less likely.

There's so much we've learned, so much left to learn, and so much we're still uncertain about. In some ways it can be exhausting, as you endlessly seek certainty. In other ways it is exciting and liberating that there are so few certainties, and so many mysteries. And that we learn exciting new things as a species at an exponential rate.

I know this comment is basically useless and off topic. I'm just wallowing in science euphoria, don't mind me.

>>6184665

>tips fedora

>>6184665

>in this moment, I am euphoric

*tips sub atomic fedora*

>>6184456
BABBY BAFFALOU BABBY BUFFALOU

>>6184642
>Of course it may be possible that I'm wrong and there somehow is no deeper underlying law, but that seems historically and physically a lot less likely.

I don't think you understand what "no underlying law" would imply. Since laws are descriptors, it would mean that it would be physically inconceivable to formulate any guess or assign any probability to any value of the parameter at any moment or position. Not even the time and place you measured it at, since the fabric of reality between the observer and the observed is dependent on the same inconceivably random parameter.

A universe where laws exist is utterly incompatible with one where there are none. Even if god played with dice (not that Copenhagen is correct), you would know the number of sides.

>>6184766
>>6184691

wow so edgy, who do you think you are? do you even know physics?

This thread is stupid. The laws of physics aren't changing. We just haven't developed an accurate model yet and might never be able to.

>>6186142
>The laws of physics aren't changing. We just haven't developed an accurate model yet and might never be able to.

How can you conclude what their nature is if your models aren't accurate, and never will be?

>>6184766
please prove your assertions and proceed to win a multiple nobel prizes.
Until then enjoy selling pencils from a cup.

>Just because you can't conceive of or understand something, doesn't mean that something does't exist