Register

Adv. Query

Q&A (4871)

Reviews (203)

Open problems (47)
Meta (439)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,082 questions , 2,232 unanswered
5,353 answers , 22,789 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
820 active unimported users
More ...

Do the fundamental laws of physics change over time?

760 views

//Like does gravity and elecro magnetism... the way we calculate these change in "extreme" //circumstances. Like a lot of the basic laws of physics and how are universe functions require electro //static background radiation from the creation of the universe which has shown to have some... //"waves" in it. So if the basic fabric of space has waves in it and could potential not exist ... before //the big bang... then are these forces not actually things that are constants or are always their but //instead are created things? because space is expanding (space by my definition being 3 //dementional location occupied by elecro static background radiation) then shouldent this mean the //"fundemental laws of nature" don't apply outside of "space". like the bigbang makes particles come //into and out of existence all the time all around us to make existence exist.... so if their was another //big bang would the laws change would the back ground radiation be different or the same? I just //want some opinions based on up to date knollege which mine is obvioulsy not.

//EDIT//

Do the fundamental FORCES (not laws) (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html) that govern our universe EVER CHANGE under any circumstances? This research (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization) seems to suggest the DENSITY of the universe changes! What does the universe's density mean exactly? Does it mean more localized CMB in a spaller space? or Does it mean a higher quantity of particles created by CMB? If this research is correct then it would prove that even the fundamental forces of physics are temporary.

Closed as per community consensus as the post is meaningless; a breathtaking incoherent stream of text that does not make any sense at present.

asked May 13, 2014 in Closed Questions by Michael J Hearn [ revision history ]
recategorized May 14, 2014 by dimension10

Voting to close; doesn't seem to make any sense to me. I'll retract my close vote if you refine your post and make it more up to the standard of PhysicsOverflow.

commented May 13, 2014 by dimension10 (1,985 points) [ no revision ]

Dear 500+ rep users, it would be great if you could not only upvote my above comment and downvote the question, but also upvote the linked close vote (which can be seen only by 500+ rep users).

commented May 13, 2014 by dimension10 (1,985 points) [ no revision ]

Your comment on this question:

To answer, leave an answer instead. Comments are usually for non-answers.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
To alert a user, please use the "@" command and remove spaces from the username, example, the user "John Doe" should be pinged as "@JohnDoe", while the user "Johndoe" should be pinged as "@Johndoe". The post author is always automatically pinged (unless you are the post author).
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.

Live preview (may slow down editor) Preview

Your name to display (optional):

Email me at this address if a comment is added after mine:

Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.

Anti-spam verification:

If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOver$\varnothing$low
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).

Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights

...