Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OSFrog2023 t1_iucdm7z wrote

Reply to comment by charliespider in The scariest picture of space... by EDFLsnape

His implication is that we could go to another planet and the physics could be different. That's fundamentally untrue. Constants like how the electroweak force changed to electromagnetism and weak force? That fits into our theories of physics as is.

14

charliespider t1_iucekye wrote

Right, what he implied wouldn't happen but I was referring to things like this: https://www.science.org/content/article/are-laws-physics-changing

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/are-the-laws-of-physics-really-universal/

and not just the consolidation of the fundamental forces.

3

OSFrog2023 t1_iucf56j wrote

Just because math allows for a thing doesn't mean we see it represented in our universe... and yes the laws of physics are absolute to our entire observable universe thus far. When we see something that doesn't aline, it's because we messed up something, not that the universe is changing itself.

6

curiouscolo4 t1_iuch65e wrote

genuinely asking as a question and not trying to challenge you because I have no clue, but how can we be in anyway certain that the laws of physics that work on our planet and surrounding galaxy, are held throughout the universe? I'd like to think things could be very different elsewhere.

1

OSFrog2023 t1_iuduqmu wrote

Galaxies are the same everywhere. Those galaxies we just found from jwst are surprisingly well formed for that early tho. Which means we are missing something or over/under estimated are models of expansion. But these images are far more precise than before with near infra-red observations. So where before we were just drawing the outline of our portrait, now we are starting to fill in the details. It's more precise, and more likely to miss perfection. That's never bad though, the best parts of science are the anomalies.

And the universe isn't very different actually. It's surprising uniform in temperature. And when modelled with respect to the cosmic microwave background radiation, our universal distribution of galaxies looks like what would result from those very tiny temperature fluctuations early on.

The physics didn't change, the temperature did... allowing for more advanced elements to be created. The temperature changed because of inflation and the dissipation of energy resulting from that expansion. Heat is basically just the friction of things bouncing into each other. So the more room you have, the less things will hit each other, and as a result, decrease temperature. The universe atm is 2.7 Kelvin and its only getting colder... very, very slowly. Weird thing is, the universe is still inflating, and even wilder, that inflation is accelerating.

My favorite quote on fiction... make believe has to be believable, reality rarely is.

2

MrAnonAMoose t1_iuda8lt wrote

This is a more common concept in the multi-verse model, comparing between universes, not within a single universe.

1

charliespider t1_iue17xv wrote

Wow... ok... I link to a couple of articles (could have linked more) where physicists discuss the possibility that the thing we call the "laws of physics" may not be as immutable as once thought and you respond with:

>the laws of physics are absolute to our entire observable universe thus far

You realize that we don't even know what 95%+ of the universe even is right? These "laws of physics" you are so certain about only explain 4-5% of the matter/energy we are aware of.

I think I'll take the opinion of a well known physicist like Sean Carroll over some guy on Reddit.

1

OSFrog2023 t1_iue7ir9 wrote

You mean the theoretical physicist Sean Carroll? Remind me what that field entails again? Observations? Or maths that may or may not have application within our own universe? You have literally no idea what you are talking about. Until you do, don't come with a YouTube video that baits pot heads into thinking they are growing...

1