Lee Smolin - Are the Laws of Nature Always Constant?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ธ.ค. 2022
- The laws of nature or physics are assumed to be everywhere the same, on the far side of the universe as sure as on the far side of your house. Otherwise science itself could not succeed. But are these laws equally constant across time? Might the deep laws of physics change over eons of time? The implications would be profound.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on the laws of physics: bit.ly/3FQENnx
Lee Smolin is a theoretical physicist, a researcher at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and an adjunct professor of physics at the University of Waterloo.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
One of the best guests. More of him please.
Smolin had surgery at the end of August, I hope He is okay.
I love listening to Him.
He's in bad shape. I'm very sorry to say. He's one of my favorite guests on this show. I saw a recent interview he gave on a different show, talking about his illness. He's almost unrecognizable.
@@majed6956I'm so sorry.. hope he's well as well as Fotini
i have to say i admire their cool, chatting about the origins of the universe while escaping from alcatraz is quite a feat.
Smolin has had some of the most interesting Concepts in science I have ever come across.
It is more mythology than scientific concepts. His concepts are not observable not verifiable and do not explain the current state of Natural laws. It does nothing
There's nothing that so dates an era than the conception of its future. Profound!!!
Good old Brian Eno. He's one of my heroes. Such a thoughtful person.
Enlightening post. Smolin is excellent at explaining very complex concepts. I appreciate his making clear that he is not completely convinced and that he is speculating.
This is fantastic, thanks
Some 20yrs ago, Rupert Sheldrake rose this precise question about the stability of physical laws.
Best thing ever💙What an amazing upload.
What makes it amazing in your opinion?
@@itsnoteasy5339 watch it and then you tell me
@@johnnafunkhouser5999 I watched it, so again what makes it amazing in your opinion
@@itsnoteasy5339 a concise survey of complicated ideas explained with artful and spot on communication skills. Rare in scientific discussions of such complicated concepts. One of the best on the subjects I have seen on TH-cam and I watch thousands of science vids
Very interesting concept- maybe EVERYTHING is relative - our time frame is too short to recognize this
But do we know all things and all laws or the universe or are we still blinded by ourselves? Laws (that we have discovered or forgotten) in our universe are constant for a reason? What's the reason? Is it related to the gift of sentience? Is there a law that governs the cycles of sentience that we either don't recognize, refuse to recognize, or have lost and forgotten along the way? Everything has a purpose, does what is done with that purpose relate to the idea of our universe being a probability matrix beyond our understanding? How do we get to understanding? We can, but how must we evolve to understand?
when the expansion of universe gets far enough along that there are pretty much only evaporated black holes left, could the massive remnants (singularities?) of these evaporated black holes be drawn to each other, whether through gravity and - or something else?
3:22 - And here's the crux of the question: without a possibility, even in principle, to test our hypotheses of "what's beyond our Universe", they remain in the realm of philosophy at best, and often just SciFi. This does not mean, of course, that such musings are "forbidden" to physicists, just that one must not give them more weight than they are due. OTOH, it is useful to keep in mind that the postulate of our "mediocrity", that is, that there's nothing special about our position in space and time, is an axiom, rather than firmly experimentally confirmed fact (beyond what dr. Smolin says at the beginning.)
I wonder whether physics is laboring under an ideal, a certain paradigm. That would be Laplace's Daemon (determinism). But what if there's another paradigm that better describes the breath and depth, of what's going on. This would esp. apply to biology. But what if it also applied to the laws of physics, as Smolin suggests.
where could changes in laws and physical constants of nature come from? would such changes happen through quantum mechanics, or are there other possible ways to make physical changes to constants and laws of nature?
I got seasick watching this.
I was just gonna type this
@@pauldrown9115
Well, you have the correct surname.
@@poksnee 😂
Give me an idea to listen to this while driving or going to bed using headsets.
demonstrating quantum wave(s) / fields beyond space from small hot dense state of big bang / inflation would demonstrate a larger megaverse or multiple universe?
It’s seeming more and more like the Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe, and/or we live in a sort of multiverse. I don’t know if science can give us the answer to that question, but I do know that if either space or time are truly infinite there’s not a human on earth who could claim to understand that reality
What has come to my mind is if the Multiverse is a thing and the cosmos is indeed infinite then could there be multiple multiverses? Is looking out across the cosmos looking for some cosmic brick wall a vane exercise?
The Planck constant is only relative to now as it expands with space and time.
The expansion we see is a measurement of our deceleration.
Our deceleration dictates the arrow of time.
这个主题十分精彩。
could expansion of universe bring about changes to physical constants and laws of nature?
These guys don't want to admit that the whole field is stuck.
Everything what these guys says now is just speculation, guesses and "we don't know".
Scientists pushing myths (hypothesis) that don't explain why our world is the way it is, that they cant observe nor experiment because they feel that the world is too fined tuned. Tough luck, why not imagine elfs and unicors before the Bing bang. It is absolute fascinating coming from scientists
Are the constants of nature always constant? Seems like magic to assume that these finely tuned numbers never change, given we have no idea from whence they came in the first place.
How about sticking to science and not speculate using myths that can't be observed, verified and don't explain why things are the way it is.
@@hbahr028 Can't be observed? I disagree. As to explaining why things are the way they are, please explain the fine tuning of those constants. And if you invoke some kind of anthropic principle, I'm going to laugh given your statement about things that can't be observed or verified.
@@Palancar you disagree that what is before the big bang is not observable ? He himself agrees that whether the laws of nature changed or would change is only speculations and cannot be observed. He admits it. So my question is what the fuck! What he is delving in is not within the realm of science. Philosophy, religion but not science
@@hbahr028 I'm talking about the values of the constants of nature. I say it is a risky assumption to assume that these constants are constant and I see no reason to assume that we cannot observe phenomena that shine light on them. I'm not talking about Smolin's speculations as to what came before the big bang. I agree that is religious speculation - unless and until another breakthrough in physics allows us to probe the question.
@@Palancar and I say the only thing we know and can test is that they are constant, since the big bang all other speculations are outside of the science realm and more into fantasy. That s why I have trouble with this, same apply to the multiverse.
In my opinion, the laws of nature are immutable, only that we, with the passage of time, can observe their various effects, without realizing what it really comes from (deep connections of interdependence) and interpreting it as the changeability of fundamental laws.
I dont think there is any way to test it experimentally. The observation itself would last indefinitely, and you still need to know how to interpret it. Beyond the bounds of possibility.
In other words, we will know more and more about these laws, we will discover their new secrets, we will know that they are more complicated, but this does not mean that they change themselves, only our knowledge about them changes.
If the constants of physics are not truly constants, and given the assumption that we cannot predict how they might change with time, then what's the point of studying physics?
To better understand what we do observe
As long as human logic is universal it doesn’t matter whether the laws of nature are fixed or not (human mind can tackle it).
this universe built within cycle two.
It’s very likely that there are so-called multiverse but that doesn’t matter for humans right now (too early and doesn’t affect this universe directly)
better to think about something more realistic and useful !
Humans didn’t reach that advanced mental and technological level to think about such a things (right now it’s a kind of sophistry and hallucinations).
The fundamental nature of existence can't be change, because this idea is paradoxical: an assertion about the truth of fundamental existence is logically required to be unchanging, so to claim it is unchanging is a contradiction. That's to say: what is fundamental and unchanging can't be change itself.
Lets be as clear as possible here, either we do have several constants or we don't!
If we don't then those variables are relative to what fundamental constant?
Surely Lee's philosopher friend is not implying that Reality is chaotic and totally random!
I rather trust in Parmenides then Heraclitus! If I have to explain why then the conversation was already lost in translation...
Well we know they aren't constant because prior to the big bang they didn't exist. Furthermore, prior to the big bang there were no laws or constants to even constrain what the laws and constants would be
LoveLee
Smolin has a new baby? That's great!
A lot of the videos CTT is uploading were actually recorded many years ago.
Gravitational waves can reach us only if BB happens in pre-existing Space. In such case space would be the oldest entity ever & research into space could unlock the mysteries of the universe. If universe is recycling and reproducing same stuff, how will it change its laws. Universe can change its laws if cause & effect are completely random and not governed by existing laws.
laws of physics seem to be real, everywhere there's matter, at least 🤔
Of course....Smolin enjoys Eno.
The structure of the spectral lines are not an absolute proof of the constancy of the natural laws over a huge distance in the Universe.
The "spectral lines" ( = real causal aggregated chain ) "rearrange" naturally as they travel through different volumetric spatial aggregates with local different properties, constants and values ( = laws ).
The so-called "laws of nature" ( of the Physics ) are not the same everywhere, because the recombination taking place in different volumetric entropic realms are evidently not the same.
One aggregate created and maintained as such in different entropic realms doesn't have the same properties, because it is created and sustained on different local and continuous causal relations.
No
It seems to me that the existence of DNA based life is very strong evidence that the universe is very likely to be many orders of magnitude older and larger than our local big bang remnant.
The19th century was the key century for the divorce of science from philosophy. Before that time, a scientists were often called natural philosophers. It seem to me the science of cosmology only lasted about a 100 years. These guys should go back to calling themselves natural philosophers. BTW, Lee Smolin is great, really enjoy his low key and skeptical perspective and is cool enough to quote Brian Eno.
First
First law of thermodynamics?
The Eternal Laws, is based on Eternal Logic,
temporary laws and logic is based on the Eternal Logic/Laws.
No one created the Eternal Life, and it is Not physical, in it's Eternal Nature.
Because physics is statistics. Statistics is always the same
No statistics is based on pool of data . If data is over your range of function definition then function itself is meaningless
@@Justsaying-. sum of coin tosses has normal distribution. That’s all sense of physics.
@@matterasmachine yes that's right . If what we seen is a true one
Could history and anthropology tell us something different? Not that the laws change but that our alignment to those laws are more...diverse than modern physics allows.
As with anything success breeds emulation. The methodology of modern physics may be a pocket of success that, by lack of imagination and courage, is preventing us from grasping another methodology that may be more fruitful. The tree of physics is preventing us from seeing the forest of ...whatever.
Nature has its ways. These varies and don't have to be constant.
To describe these as "laws" is self-limiting and dumb.
Well the baby can't keep you up at night if you're half way around the world on a yacht musing about the universe lol
Good (god) creates joy, beauty and harmony (heaven).
Ignorance (greed) creates misery, ugliness and conflict (hell).
Ego causes much more and since most humans have ego it is the exact reason why most exist in a state of hell weather aware of it or not.
@@itsnoteasy5339 God has the biggest ego of them all.
@@andreasplosky8516 Do you have proof of your claim?
@@itsnoteasy5339 Yes: The bible. To be able to commit mass murder one needs to have a humongous ego.
But of course... in reality, I don't believe in the existence of invisible magical god-daddy-friends.
@@andreasplosky8516 precisely
🤔 and i dont even understand what you both talking about!? 😅
#assumingourmindexistobjectively!? 😁
#whoamiwhyoceanisvastwhatrealfunctionofpinealglandwhereisthecenterofuniverseisitreallybeganwhenbigbanghappenandhowactuallythistheoryexistwhenwenottheretoobserve? 🤕😅
#justupidea.. ✌️😁
The opposite of the Big Bang is true. There were many contractions of time and distance by the formation of matter rather than an expansion.
Why were there these contractions?
@@ApurvaSukant It’s the mass of matter that contracts time and distance.
@@JungleJargon the universe is currently expanding though
Instead of invoking dark matter and dark energy, do some thought experiments in general relativity and you will understand that rate of time and the measure of distance are relative to the amount of matter and mass there is in the vicinity. The speed of light literally depends on these two variables of time and distance.
As you observe a galaxy you are actually seeing differing rates of time and differing measures of distance. The result is that you are seeing differing speeds of light (because of the rate of the passing of time and measures of distance) relative to where we are since the measures of time and distance are both dependent on the amount of matter and gravity there is in the vicinity. (The speed of light isn’t actually changing, the measures of time and distance are changing *which effectively changes the speed of light as we observe it over GREAT distances.)*
The result is that distance is greatly expanded (not expanding) where there is no matter between us and distant galaxies (causing redshift) eliminating the need for dark energy and the movement of the outer spiral arms of galaxies is at a faster rate of time causing them to move faster as we observe them eliminating the need for dark matter. This also means that plasma jets shooting out from the center of galaxies isn’t seven times the speed of light. It’s that the distance is expanded and the rate of time is faster the less matter there is in the vicinity.
There is no such thing as a nonsensical infinitely expanding universe or an imaginary inflaton and there is no such thing as imaginary invisible dark matter.
Distance is *merely* greatly expanded between the black holes in galaxies (causing the redshift) so the universe is not infinitely expanding as is claimed. An infinitely expanding universe is nonsensical. Not only is distance greatly expanded where there is no matter between galaxies, time runs at a much faster rate where there is no matter.
Distances within the galaxies are vast so when we observe another galaxy, we are literally observing differing rates of time and differing measures of distance still within the limits of other galaxies, not to mention the *extreme* distances *between* galaxies where there is no matter to dilate time and distance.
That means the distances between the galaxies are greatly expanded, (not expanding) and time between the galaxies is running at a much faster rate *which allows for us to see fully formed distant galaxies in the first place.*
@@Mageblood
@@JungleJargon there’s the copy and paste cherry picking
It’s people who don’t believe the Bible that will be clowns.
Smolin is desperate to find a solution to the absolute beginning of time and space. He doesn't like the implications.
It's people who believe in the Bible without ever questioning it and without doing deep research on it who are the clowns.
@@itsnoteasy5339 Who said there’s no evidence supporting the Bible?
@@JungleJargon Do you have proof? Provide it.
@@itsnoteasy5339 It’s a lifetime of study and the evidence keeps coming out with every archaeological discovery. How many ancient civilizations can you name? There are sixteen of them. You can start learning there.
Young Lee Smolin