What is the evidence that physics have been/are different?

[DanieltheDragon]

As far as I am aware the physics in our universe are consistent. Is there evidence that other parts of the universe after the Big Bang have different physics?

[dad]

As far as I am aware the physics in our universe are consistent. Is there evidence that other parts of the universe after the Big Bang have different physics?

We might want to ask what they are consistent WITH!? Man is stuck in the solar system, so you have only this point of observation to compare anything with.

[Divine Insight]

As far as I am aware the physics in our universe are consistent. Is there evidence that other parts of the universe after the Big Bang have different physics?

We might want to ask what they are consistent WITH!? Man is stuck in the solar system, so you have only this point of observation to compare anything with.

You are ignoring the fact that when we look out into the universe we are looking back in time. If time flowed differently in the past we wouldn't see what we see.

So your ideas are simply uninformed. You are preaching a hypothesis that requires extreme ignorance to be believed. A person would need to be completely ignorant of all scientific knowledge and rational reasoning capabilities to embrace your claims.

You can no doubt find such people, but it's not likely that you'll find them on this forum.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 2 by dad]
They are consistent with what we observe. What would lead you to believe they are any different?

[phlegmnoire]

As far as I am aware the physics in our universe are consistent. Is there evidence that other parts of the universe after the Big Bang have different physics?

Sommerfeld's constant (the fine-structure constant) changes over time since its value depends on the number of interacting particles. The number of interacting particles changes during inflation, and later when particles form as the universe begins to cool, and now as the universe expands.

The multiverse hypothesis proposes the existence of infinite universes with different physical constants.

Wikipedia has a good summery of changing phisical constants:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_ ... dependence

[Kenisaw]

As far as I am aware the physics in our universe are consistent. Is there evidence that other parts of the universe after the Big Bang have different physics?

Sommerfeld's constant (the fine-structure constant) changes over time since its value depends on the number of interacting particles. The number of interacting particles changes during inflation, and later when particles form as the universe begins to cool, and now as the universe expands.

The multiverse hypothesis proposes the existence of infinite universes with different physical constants.

Wikipedia has a good summery of changing phisical constants:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_ ... dependence

It's very interesting and exciting if the fine structure constant (FSC) does in fact vary slightly over time, because certain hypothesis' require the existence of more spatial dimensions to exist, and those dimensions can't exist unless the FSC varies.

The bad news is that, if the FSC does vary, than most likely life cannot exist just anywhere in the universe, because the FSC controls values of several constants that have to fall in a certain range for carbon based life as we know it to exist in spacetime. (Of course we have no idea what all the possible scenarios are for life to exist, that comment only relates to life forms as we understand them presently).

While the study that found the variation is still being vetted, and there have already been other studies that could NOT find such variations, it's still a very interesting area of research. I would not agree how you wrote your comment Phlegm, because we can't say for sure that it "changes over time".

Here are two links to articles about it.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5630715/to-crea ... -starlight
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5642233/ask-a-p ... y-constant

Here is a paper on an attempted method to discover variation.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.04593.pdf

[H.sapiens]

As far as I am aware the physics in our universe are consistent. Is there evidence that other parts of the universe after the Big Bang have different physics?

The evidence is simple, unless that all the laws of nature can be suspended or altered at whim the Bible turns out to be a book of fairy tales and we obviously can't have that now, can we?

[bluethread]

As far as I am aware the physics in our universe are consistent. Is there evidence that other parts of the universe after the Big Bang have different physics?

The evidence is simple, unless that all the laws of nature can be suspended or altered at whim the Bible turns out to be a book of fairy tales and we obviously can't have that now, can we?

Who said anything about the bible? The question is whether our view of physics is universal. I'm not sure the bible has anything to say about that.

[H.sapiens]

As far as I am aware the physics in our universe are consistent. Is there evidence that other parts of the universe after the Big Bang have different physics?

The evidence is simple, unless that all the laws of nature can be suspended or altered at whim the Bible turns out to be a book of fairy tales and we obviously can't have that now, can we?

Who said anything about the bible? The question is whether our view of physics is universal. I'm not sure the bible has anything to say about that.

@Dad did, as in:

Then there can be no discussion. To have a discussion both parties must agree on certain premises, if only for arguments sake. Insisting on one's own premises, while permitting ones opponent to argue without accepting those premises for the sake of discussion, is like playing a game of football where you must abide by certain rules, while your opponent is permitted to do as he pleases.

The premises for science claims must exist and be able to be written down. No pie in the sky philosophies needed.

Then you need to show how it is wrong and in order to do that there must be agreement on the standard being used to make such a point.

I can and do. If they talk of tree rings I point out that they need a same nature for that to mean what they claim. For stars, they need distances to have sizes and all that is needed for a model. They need time to exist where stars are and all the way there, for that to be possible. They may not use a false or unsupported basis for a science claim.

Premises need not be rational. In fact, rational premises are, at their root based on irrational premises. That is the root of your argument. I say "I am" is the first premise. They say that is not acceptable because it is irrational. Then they say, " I think, therefore I am." is the proper first premise, because it is rational. However, it is not. It seeks to validate the premise "I am", based on the premise "I think". Therefore, it does not make "I am" a rational first premise, but makes "I think" the first irrational premise. To make "I think " a rational premise, one would need to prove that one does indeed think and that would depend on yet another premise. That is the proper way to address this issue, not bandying about various tenets that the other side refuses to accept.

Not applicable to actual specific science issues that have to be observable and testable, and repeatable etc. There is no 'I think' needed. Just the facts and what is known.

You are discussing philosophy, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. What you are doing is allowing the discussion to drift off into the weeds of the redshift in deep space and what it means. etc. The point is that you are expecting that they accept a bible prospective.

False. They simply can accept whatever they like. bit they must not make false claims of knowledge. Unless they can prove what red shift involves in deep space, they can't use it for models. Unless they show time is the same and space in the far universe, they may not try to conform it to the earth space and time we know here.

Yet, you have given them no incentive to do so. Until they commit themselves to that prospective, they are going to knock you around like a cat toy. Either get agreement to a bible prospective, for arguments sake, or accept their prospective, for argument s sake. Otherwise, there is not reason to argue at all.

The only prospective that matters is that they do not know! They could not knock their way out of a paper bag, relax.

They clearly don't have to win. All they have to do is make you appear the fool.

To do that they need to support their beliefs, which the cannot do.

Either get them to accept the biblical prospective, or make your argument from their prospective, otherwise you are fighting with both hands tied behind your back.

False. They must be able to defend their perspective as more than a belief when they call it science. If you are claiming that we must believe for no reason that time exists the same as here in all of space or that the nature on earth long ago was the same because they do, that is ridiculous. THAT is their perspective. All one needs to do to win is show that this is not really fact, or knowledge or supportable or science!

Sorry, that was a clumsy way of saying it. I am speaking to attempts to reconcile Genesis to scientific extrapolation. Yes, that can not be done, because Genesis is not talking about science. That is my point.

Yes it can. Take the fossil record for example. I the nature was not the same, then we cannot claim that most species could fossilize under the right conditions as they now probably could. Nor could we assume man would have fossilized or left remains if nature was not the same as now.
Therefore, when we look at Genesis, and see man and animals were created at the very beginning, we can accept that as agreeing with science. Why? Because we do not see man in the fossil record or most animals early on.

Science believes it fits the record based on the belief that there should be fossils if man lived, because they believe in a same nature in the past.
I believe that the bible fits the record because nature probably was not the same. In either case it is belief. Same facts and evidence viewed under different beliefs. The same is true in any field of science!

It may have valuable information for all generations, but it was not written to all generations.

Wrong. It was written for all generations. Daniel for example was told to seal up his prophesy to the understanding until the time of the end. So you can't say it was just for that time.

Don't you see, that is not a rational argument. That does not mean it is not true. It just means that it is of little value to a hard core rationalist.

It means it is not known or fact, but merely imagined and believed.

No, they just see a bulldozer chasing a bunch of rabbits in an open field. Though I do not use the bulldozer approach, I do recognize that it only works when there is something to knock down. As far as I can tell, you have not required anyone to establish a foundation, let alone build structure.

They already built up a plethora of models of the past and where we came from. There is plenty to knock down.

Etc., etc., etc.

[phlegmnoire]

I would not agree how you wrote your comment Phlegm, because we can't say for sure that it "changes over time".

Good additional info.