Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I wanted to know if there is a physical theory that considers that the laws of physics undergo an evolutionary process. That see the law of physics or the absence of them, as something dynamic, and that with time they slowly converge to something we know today. A kind of simulated annealing of the physical laws.

share|improve this question
1  
Hi Aron. Welcome to Physics.SE. Please don't add user signatures below your posts. Most of your info is provided by your about me and your own user card ;-) –  Waffle's Crazy Peanut May 5 '13 at 8:04
    
You might want to check out Lee Smolin's "Life of the Cosmos", it's a bit outdated but nevertheless very interesting!! –  Schlomo Jun 5 '13 at 7:34

3 Answers 3

Yes, evolution has influenced physics, though it isn't wide-spread. Cosmologoical natural selection draws upon Darwin's natural selection. It postulates that a black hole, upon collapse, spawns a new Universe, with parameters similar to its Universe, though slightly mutated. By this, it is meant that the fundamental parameters in the parent Universe are $p=(h,e,c,G,\ldots)$ and in the child Universe $p\prime=(h+\delta h,e+\delta e,c+\delta c,G+\delta G,\ldots)$.

Consequently, stable Universes which permit black holes survive and proliferate, whilst those that don't perish. The population of Universes ought to be dominated by those that have the best conditions for black holes.

In string theory, there is the so-called string landscape of $\sim10^{500}$ vacua, which preserve or break different symmetries, and result in different laws of nature. I'm not sure an analogy with evolution is appropriate, so I'll leave it to an expert.

Also, I'm sure that there physical systems that exhibit emergent complexity (rather than evolutionary features per se). For example, complicated features of special relativity, like time dilations, contractions, planes of simultaneity etc, emerge from two simple assumptions.

share|improve this answer
    
Interesting but here we small variations of physical constants, obviously with huge implications. But what I meant, is more something like that initially no physical laws at all, all behavior is possible.Then slowly with time, we start to observe patterns of behaviors (embryonic physical laws). Something similar of embryonic human societies, where initially there are no laws, no precise social conducts but with time, only the bahaviors that permit survival of the entity persist. –  Aron Wahl May 5 '13 at 9:15
2  
any references to the creation of universes? I believe, multiverse theory is still in it's infancy and not yet proved/disproved conclusively. –  Vineet Menon May 5 '13 at 13:16
    
@vineetmenon I've read about it in a popular cosmology book, I can't remember which one. Lee Smolin proposed it in his book The Life of the Cosmos (which I haven't read). I certainly agree that Smolin's idea hasn't caught on much, and that many don't recognize it as science in the Karl Popper sense. –  innisfree May 5 '13 at 20:04
    
Many phyicists disagree with Lee Smolin about these ideas, but this answer is somehow interesting. –  Dilaton Jun 5 '13 at 11:26

The reason why the "evolution of physical laws" is not popular is because we can make sense of observations from a long time in the past with the laws we know (star formation and evolution comes to mind). One can of course consider an change in physics with time, but this would only add complications to a thoery that was perfectly able to explain most observations when it was static and therefore fall victim to Occam's razor.

share|improve this answer

I'm not sure the exact question you are asking. The exact answer would be based on what interpretation of what information you are looking for and therefore I will explain whatis thought to be known and you can make your best guess if it is or is not what you are thinking.

The early universe is theorized to have only been made up of one force. For reasons which become more speculative the universe underwent changes evolving into 2, then 3, and finally into the four forces that are currently accepted(known). The energy densities involved in getting forces to merge into a new simpler force becomes more and more fantastic as you approach one force or theory of everything. So in a sense it is thought that the universe has changed from t=0. Ths time that before this the universe is described as a singularity which is another way of saying we don't know about it and when you put numbers in equations you start to get answers involving infinites or a number divided by zero. So what this tells us is something about the theory itself is fundementally wrong and needs further refinements so that it best explains what we actually see happening in the universe. So for example, general relativity explains gravity really well and quantum mechanics actually does a good job of describing and combining the electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces. The two theories make great observable predictions and both seem to currently contradict each other. So what you can take from this could be many things. Importantly scientific theories are just mathematical tools that make accurate predictions we can observe. They could be entirely wrong in their actual concept versus what the universe is really doing. Like ptolemy's model of the solar system it may still make accurate predictions and can be used successfully for some mathematical results such as predicting the movement of celestial bodies but ultimately proved wrong in its idea that Earth is stationary and everything revolves around it. This is where Occam's razor comes in and simply states if two theories successfully explain why something happens then pick the simpler of the two. There is of course no logical reason or law that Occam's razor is a fact of science, it simply gets used as a way to pursue theories but gets grossly misused by most people (it is actually a belief system which is counter to the principle behind science which is to be open to whatever the data is telling you).

So current leading physical models show the universe as we view it from the time it started "inflating" until now has undergone changes. Anything that speculates about changing physical constants is currently not a popular idea but there mamy be some evidence for it which could drastically change how we view the evolution of the universe. That is is formed from are from black hole friendliness is in no way a testable or a scientific theory. Firstly it ignores what would have started the original universe from which every other universe is spawned. Secondly it makes no testable ideas so is little different from religious views (and I actually don't have negative views toward anyone for believing in a religion in itself). So take what you want out of our current ideas about the universe but bear in mind there is no "true" theory that currently fully explains the universe and that despite being useful tools for engineering could be completely false and viewed as absurd in 1000 years much as we view mythology from 1000 years ago. Anyone that tells you that anything is really 100% certain or Occam's razor or whatever else is well meaning but not entirely true. There are only models that seem to be good theories and are the most currently accepted ones.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.