Return to Question

I am asking this question in this site as it involves some philosophy of physics...

I am trying to understand what would happen to the universe if it had no global symmetries (including those that imply conservation laws). One physicist that I found to be interested in this topic is Lee Smolin. He proposed a theory called "Cosmological Natural Selection" 1 in which the universe's laws would not be really fixed but instead they could vary with time. I have also read that he links this idea to the proposal that the universe may not have (global) symmetries (including those associated with conservation laws). In this review 2 that I found about one of his books it is said that the lack of these global symmetries would indeed imply that the laws of physics could potentially change:

Smolin is a strong proponent of Leibnitz and the principle of sufficient reason, which states that if there is more than one possibility for things to be as they are, then there must be a sufficient reason for the actual outcome being the case. He uses this to great effect in defining his principles for a new cosmology. In particular, “there should be nothing in the universe that acts on other things without itself being acted upon.” This expresses the philosophy of relationism, where every entity in the universe evolves dynamically, including the physical laws governing the universe. These laws then “become explicable only when they participate in the dance of change and mutual influence that makes the world a whole”. A consequence of relationism, Smolin argues, is that symmetries and conservation laws can only be approximations to reality.

(Bold text is mine and is added to give emphasis)

So, even if we put Smolin's own theories aside for a moment, it seems anyways that if the universe actually did not have any global symmetries after all, the laws of physics (even the most fundamental ones) could vary and evolve dynamically. If someone that is familiar with physics could confirm this it would be appreciated...

I am asking this question in this site as it involves some philosophy of physics...

I am trying to understand what would happen to the universe if it had no global symmetries (including those that imply conservation laws). One physicist that I found to be interested in this topic is Lee Smolin. He proposed a theory called "Cosmological Natural Selection" 1 in which the universe's laws would not be really fixed but instead they could vary with time. I have also read that he links this idea to the proposal that the universe may not have (global) symmetries (including those associated with conservation laws). In this review 2 that I found about one of his books it is said that the lack of these global symmetries would indeed imply that the laws of physics could potentially change:

Smolin is a strong proponent of Leibnitz and the principle of sufficient reason, which states that if there is more than one possibility for things to be as they are, then there must be a sufficient reason for the actual outcome being the case. He uses this to great effect in defining his principles for a new cosmology. In particular, “there should be nothing in the universe that acts on other things without itself being acted upon.” This expresses the philosophy of relationism, where every entity in the universe evolves dynamically, including the physical laws governing the universe. These laws then “become explicable only when they participate in the dance of change and mutual influence that makes the world a whole”. A consequence of relationism, Smolin argues, is that symmetries and conservation laws can only be approximations to reality.

(Bold text is mine and is added to give emphasis)

So, even if we put Smolin's own theories aside for a moment, it seems anyways that if the universe actually did not have any global symmetries after all, the laws of physics (even the most fundamental ones) could vary and evolve dynamically. Would this actually happen? I have been told both that this would actually indeed happen but also that we could live just fine without these symmetries and laws... If someone that is familiar with physics could confirm this it would be appreciated...

I am asking this question in this site as it involves some philosophy of physics...

I am trying to understand what would happen to the universe if it had no global symmetries (including those that imply conservation laws). One physicist that I found to be interested in this topic is Lee Smolin. He proposed a theory called "Cosmological Natural Selection" 1 in which the universe's laws would not be really fixed but instead they could vary with time. I have also read that he links this idea to the proposal that the universe may not have (global) symmetries (including those associated with conservation laws). In this review 2 that I found about one of his books it is said that the lack of these global symmetries would indeed imply that the laws of physics could potentially change:

Smolin is a strong proponent of Leibnitz and the principle of sufficient reason, which states that if there is more than one possibility for things to be as they are, then there must be a sufficient reason for the actual outcome being the case. He uses this to great effect in defining his principles for a new cosmology. In particular, “there should be nothing in the universe that acts on other things without itself being acted upon.” This expresses the philosophy of relationism, where every entity in the universe evolves dynamically, including the physical laws governing the universe. These laws then “become explicable only when they participate in the dance of change and mutual influence that makes the world a whole”. A consequence of relationism, Smolin argues, is that symmetries and conservation laws can only be approximations to reality.

(Bold text is mine and is added to give emphasis)

So, even if we put Smolin's own theories aside for a moment, it seems anyways that if the universe actually did not have any global symmetries after all, the laws of physics could vary and evolve dynamically. If someone that is familiar with physics could confirm this it would be appreciated...

I am asking this question in this site as it involves some philosophy of physics...

I am trying to understand what would happen to the universe if it had no global symmetries (including those that imply conservation laws). One physicist that I found to be interested in this topic is Lee Smolin. He proposed a theory called "Cosmological Natural Selection" 1 in which the universe's laws would not be really fixed but instead they could vary with time. I have also read that he links this idea to the proposal that the universe may not have (global) symmetries (including those associated with conservation laws). In this review 2 that I found about one of his books it is said that the lack of these global symmetries would indeed imply that the laws of physics could potentially change:

Smolin is a strong proponent of Leibnitz and the principle of sufficient reason, which states that if there is more than one possibility for things to be as they are, then there must be a sufficient reason for the actual outcome being the case. He uses this to great effect in defining his principles for a new cosmology. In particular, “there should be nothing in the universe that acts on other things without itself being acted upon.” This expresses the philosophy of relationism, where every entity in the universe evolves dynamically, including the physical laws governing the universe. These laws then “become explicable only when they participate in the dance of change and mutual influence that makes the world a whole”. A consequence of relationism, Smolin argues, is that symmetries and conservation laws can only be approximations to reality.

(Bold text is mine and is added to give emphasis)

So, even if we put Smolin's own theories aside for a moment, it seems anyways that if the universe actually did not have any global symmetries after all, the laws of physics (even the most fundamental ones) could vary and evolve dynamically. If someone that is familiar with physics could confirm this it would be appreciated...

I am asking this question in this site as it involves some philosophy of physics...

I am trying to understand what would happen to the universe if it had no global symmetries (including those that imply conservation laws). One physicist that I found to be interested in this topic is Lee Smolin. He proposed a theory called "Cosmological Natural Selection" 1 in which the universe's laws would not be really fixed but instead they could vary with time. I have also read that he links this idea to the proposal that the universe may not have (global) symmetries (including those associated with conservation laws). In this review 2 that I found about one of his books it is said that the lack of these global symmetries would indeed imply that the laws of physics could potentially change:

Smolin is a strong proponent of Leibnitz and the principle of sufficient reason, which states that if there is more than one possibility for things to be as they are, then there must be a sufficient reason for the actual outcome being the case. He uses this to great effect in defining his principles for a new cosmology. In particular, “there should be nothing in the universe that acts on other things without itself being acted upon.” This expresses the philosophy of relationism, where every entity in the universe evolves dynamically, including the physical laws governing the universe. These laws then “become explicable only when they participate in the dance of change and mutual influence that makes the world a whole”. A consequence of relationism, Smolin argues, is that symmetries and conservation laws can only be approximations to reality.

(Bold text is mine and is added to give emphasis)

So, Smolin's own theories apart, it seems anyways that if the universe actually did not have any global symmetries after all, the laws of physics could vary and evolve dynamically. If someone that is familiar with physics could confirm this it would be appreciated...

I am asking this question in this site as it involves some philosophy of physics...

I am trying to understand what would happen to the universe if it had no global symmetries (including those that imply conservation laws). One physicist that I found to be interested in this topic is Lee Smolin. He proposed a theory called "Cosmological Natural Selection" 1 in which the universe's laws would not be really fixed but instead they could vary with time. I have also read that he links this idea to the proposal that the universe may not have (global) symmetries (including those associated with conservation laws). In this review 2 that I found about one of his books it is said that the lack of these global symmetries would indeed imply that the laws of physics could potentially change:

Smolin is a strong proponent of Leibnitz and the principle of sufficient reason, which states that if there is more than one possibility for things to be as they are, then there must be a sufficient reason for the actual outcome being the case. He uses this to great effect in defining his principles for a new cosmology. In particular, “there should be nothing in the universe that acts on other things without itself being acted upon.” This expresses the philosophy of relationism, where every entity in the universe evolves dynamically, including the physical laws governing the universe. These laws then “become explicable only when they participate in the dance of change and mutual influence that makes the world a whole”. A consequence of relationism, Smolin argues, is that symmetries and conservation laws can only be approximations to reality.

(Bold text is mine and is added to give emphasis)

So, even if we put Smolin's own theories aside for a moment, it seems anyways that if the universe actually did not have any global symmetries after all, the laws of physics could vary and evolve dynamically. If someone that is familiar with physics could confirm this it would be appreciated...