- #1
Edward Solomo
- 72
- 1
I have been reading that observations of distant quasars over the past decade have been suggesting that there have been minuscule changes in our physical constants. An estimate was given about 1 part per 100000 every billion years.
If such a change is indeed happening, then it is safe to assume that these constants are changing even as we speak. However, I have encountered a rather deep issue concerning the change of the physical constants. If the physical constants are changing over time, then the physical constants are NOT universal. This is because time passes at different rates in different inertial reference frames. Thus the physical constants are changing at a slower rate in high-gravity environments than in low gravity environments. Thus the physical constants on Earth are different than those on Jupiter, and those at the Sun and different than those are the nearest black hole.
From the above we can arrive at a contradiction, proving that the either the physical constants do not change OR there exists absolute time (and thus space). I am more inclined to believe the former, that the physical constants do not change. Now let us proceed to the contradiction.
Suppose there is an observer on Earth that discovers a super-massive black hole that is nearly at edge the observable universe. Let the location of the black hole be A, and the location of the Earth be B.
Now let's say that some object starts moving from A towards B. The observer on earth, in a universe that is 13.7 billions years old, sees this object obeying the local laws of physics in the region of A using the values of physical constants that existed since near the Big Bang. Eventually this object reaches B. The observer now sees this object obeying the laws of physics using OUR local physical constants. Now this object leaves the region of B and heads back towards A.
Remember that time moves extremely slow around A, thus even tens of billions of years later, the physical constants will still nearly be the same as they were during the early universe. So when this object enters A the observer on Earth now witnesses this object obeying the laws of physics using the local physical constants of A, which are nearly the same as those as the Big Bang.
However we must consider that although time passes very slow near a black hole, it does not actually stop. Thus the current value of the physical constants at A must differ ever so slightly than what they were at the start of the object's journey. We will consider that the passing of time (relative time) can be measured by the amount of change in the physical constants (assuming that the rate of change itself is constant, or at least predictable by some other well defined function), just as it can be measured by the motion between objects.
Now to our observer on Earth, who has watched this object travel from A to B over a period of billions of years, this object has been in existence for billions of years. However, suppose there was a second observer traveling with the object from A to B and to A again.
Our second observer, when he was half way through his journey, would have experienced tens of billions of years as he traveled from A to B. Our observer should also experience tens of billions years completing his journey back from B to A. However, as our second observer starts to approach the near time-frozen region of A, he should see that the physical constants are now reverting back to the Big Bang era. When he finally reaches his destination at A, he measures the values of the physical constants of A and compares them to his measurements at A from when he first started the journey and concludes that only two years have passed throughout his entire journey from A to B and back to A, because the change in the value of the physical constants was very small.
However our second observer knows that he is still at some distance X from location B and thus has traveled at some distance 2X + N (N is added to include the expansion of space), thus even though the universe is only two years older at A than it was at the start of his journey at A, he knows that there is no way that he could have traveled the distance of 2X + N in two years, because he would to have traveled tens of billions times faster than light in order to do so. Then our second observer would either conclude that (or experienced):
1) He traveled faster than light (not possible)
2) Sees that the physical constants at A have changed at the same rate as they did at B, and thus the changing of physical constants does not occur according to relative time, and thus he concludes that there exists an absolute time and space in which the fabric of the universe exists within, and that locations of flat space-time in our universe are where the metric of our universe is synchronized with that of absolute space and time. ***Although that entertains the idea of the clock of flat space-time fabric being out of phase with that of absolute time (if absolute time is quantized), and thus the flat-Planck-second is the shortest unit of time.
3) Is stuck forever in some intermediate region between A and B in a closed time loop, because he experienced time reversal when the physical constants started to revert upon approaching location B, and thus can never conclude that there exists absolute time, proving that absolute time does NOT exist.
4) This experiment could never have taken place because the physical constants cannot change, and that our instruments/scientists are experiencing unforeseen difficulties when observing very distant quasars.
5) The physical constants can be at different values about different regions in the universe to an observer, but the measure of one constant in one reference frame must be indicative of the values of the other physical constants in that same reference frame. Thus the change in the physical constants can measure the passing of relative time and the age of a reference frame relative to the start of the Big Bang (assuming that time is uni-directional). Also, the changes in the physical constants in an accelerating reference frame can be compared to the changes of the physical constants in a non-accelerating (or barely accelerating reference frame) reference frame, where time passes at its fastest rate.
Corollary to 5: Thus the observer concludes that IF there exists absolute time, then he must consider that our universe is a subset/subspace of absolute time and space, such that the rate at which absolute time passes can be no slower than that of flat space-time, and conversely, no faster than that of flat space-time, as there is no reason for flat space-time to be out of sync (but not out of phase) with absolute space and time, any more than there would be a reason for an object to slow down or change direction without another force acting upon it.
If such a change is indeed happening, then it is safe to assume that these constants are changing even as we speak. However, I have encountered a rather deep issue concerning the change of the physical constants. If the physical constants are changing over time, then the physical constants are NOT universal. This is because time passes at different rates in different inertial reference frames. Thus the physical constants are changing at a slower rate in high-gravity environments than in low gravity environments. Thus the physical constants on Earth are different than those on Jupiter, and those at the Sun and different than those are the nearest black hole.
From the above we can arrive at a contradiction, proving that the either the physical constants do not change OR there exists absolute time (and thus space). I am more inclined to believe the former, that the physical constants do not change. Now let us proceed to the contradiction.
Suppose there is an observer on Earth that discovers a super-massive black hole that is nearly at edge the observable universe. Let the location of the black hole be A, and the location of the Earth be B.
Now let's say that some object starts moving from A towards B. The observer on earth, in a universe that is 13.7 billions years old, sees this object obeying the local laws of physics in the region of A using the values of physical constants that existed since near the Big Bang. Eventually this object reaches B. The observer now sees this object obeying the laws of physics using OUR local physical constants. Now this object leaves the region of B and heads back towards A.
Remember that time moves extremely slow around A, thus even tens of billions of years later, the physical constants will still nearly be the same as they were during the early universe. So when this object enters A the observer on Earth now witnesses this object obeying the laws of physics using the local physical constants of A, which are nearly the same as those as the Big Bang.
However we must consider that although time passes very slow near a black hole, it does not actually stop. Thus the current value of the physical constants at A must differ ever so slightly than what they were at the start of the object's journey. We will consider that the passing of time (relative time) can be measured by the amount of change in the physical constants (assuming that the rate of change itself is constant, or at least predictable by some other well defined function), just as it can be measured by the motion between objects.
Now to our observer on Earth, who has watched this object travel from A to B over a period of billions of years, this object has been in existence for billions of years. However, suppose there was a second observer traveling with the object from A to B and to A again.
Our second observer, when he was half way through his journey, would have experienced tens of billions of years as he traveled from A to B. Our observer should also experience tens of billions years completing his journey back from B to A. However, as our second observer starts to approach the near time-frozen region of A, he should see that the physical constants are now reverting back to the Big Bang era. When he finally reaches his destination at A, he measures the values of the physical constants of A and compares them to his measurements at A from when he first started the journey and concludes that only two years have passed throughout his entire journey from A to B and back to A, because the change in the value of the physical constants was very small.
However our second observer knows that he is still at some distance X from location B and thus has traveled at some distance 2X + N (N is added to include the expansion of space), thus even though the universe is only two years older at A than it was at the start of his journey at A, he knows that there is no way that he could have traveled the distance of 2X + N in two years, because he would to have traveled tens of billions times faster than light in order to do so. Then our second observer would either conclude that (or experienced):
1) He traveled faster than light (not possible)
2) Sees that the physical constants at A have changed at the same rate as they did at B, and thus the changing of physical constants does not occur according to relative time, and thus he concludes that there exists an absolute time and space in which the fabric of the universe exists within, and that locations of flat space-time in our universe are where the metric of our universe is synchronized with that of absolute space and time. ***Although that entertains the idea of the clock of flat space-time fabric being out of phase with that of absolute time (if absolute time is quantized), and thus the flat-Planck-second is the shortest unit of time.
3) Is stuck forever in some intermediate region between A and B in a closed time loop, because he experienced time reversal when the physical constants started to revert upon approaching location B, and thus can never conclude that there exists absolute time, proving that absolute time does NOT exist.
4) This experiment could never have taken place because the physical constants cannot change, and that our instruments/scientists are experiencing unforeseen difficulties when observing very distant quasars.
5) The physical constants can be at different values about different regions in the universe to an observer, but the measure of one constant in one reference frame must be indicative of the values of the other physical constants in that same reference frame. Thus the change in the physical constants can measure the passing of relative time and the age of a reference frame relative to the start of the Big Bang (assuming that time is uni-directional). Also, the changes in the physical constants in an accelerating reference frame can be compared to the changes of the physical constants in a non-accelerating (or barely accelerating reference frame) reference frame, where time passes at its fastest rate.
Corollary to 5: Thus the observer concludes that IF there exists absolute time, then he must consider that our universe is a subset/subspace of absolute time and space, such that the rate at which absolute time passes can be no slower than that of flat space-time, and conversely, no faster than that of flat space-time, as there is no reason for flat space-time to be out of sync (but not out of phase) with absolute space and time, any more than there would be a reason for an object to slow down or change direction without another force acting upon it.
Last edited: