Consider the lowly photon ...

Keep in mind that while clocks obviously have physical existence, time is a concept. So while a clock can be influenced by other physical things such as speed or gravitational potential, time itself is not. At least not directly as is the case with clocks. But if we see our 'best' clocks changing we have a tendency to think time must have changed.

And in fact we can conceive of a time that follows a clock through any change at the same time we conceive of a time that does not. Concepts can not be mutually exclusive. Except for those that we conceive to be so.

And then, they are only that way for those of us who conceive of them that way.

LB

It is presently inconceivable to me, if "t" is really inconstant, how we would be able to observe its variations. In other words, it could be varying all over the place and we wouldn't know it - we have no yardstick.

It is my conjecture then, that there are <b>NO</b> constants - everything we observe is changing. (But I cannot prove it.)

<b>[shando] "It is my conjecture then, that there are NO constants ..."</b>

What about pi?

Zero seems fairly constant to me, also.

Perhaps you need to be a bit more explicit about what you mean by 'constant'?

Reality has three components. There are the things with physical existence (rocks, light, meter sticks, speed). And there are the things with conceptual existence (coordinate axes, unicorns, singularities, ratios).

So there can be both physical constants and conceptual constants.


LB

The third component of reality? Things with consciousness. Conjecture: There must be at least one consciousness in the universe before any conceptual things can exist.

Conceptual constants can easily be rock-solid-constant; we just conceive of them that way. But note that at the same time we can also conceive of a variable constant. There are very few constraints on concepts, yet they really are part of reality. The physical can influence the conceptual, and the conceptual can influence the physicsl.

<ul>
Suppose we conceive of a creature no one has ever seen - a unicorn for example. A biologist becomes so enthralled with the idea that she developes the technology to create one. She does so, and unicorns are no longer conceptual.

Something from the conceptual part of the universe has influenced the the physical part of the universe, via the itervention of something from the conscious part of the universe.
</ul>

Larry, your last example seems to indicate that the unicorn is not constant.

This also reminds me of the topic metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=741
John Hunter offered the idea that the gravitational constant is not constant.
In my opinion, the model can then always be reworked to fit a new "constant".

PI is more constant, yes.
PI is pure math, and math is the only field of science where we can find solid proof for ... ummm ... other math.

I wonder if the "spherical approximation", sometimes used on cows, would also work for unicorns?

Physical constants are based on measurements made at a particular time and a particulat place. Over time when we see that certain relationships among these many measurements do not change, we call it a constant and give it a name.

It is a reasonable thing to do. But it does ignore the possibility that one or more of the measurements might change at some time or some place. By ignore, I mean we never mention the possibility even though a lot of people know about it. Its not even mentioned in college classes when we teach students that things called constants exist.

<ul>
I live near a major highway in a major metropolitan area. I make repeated measurements of the "local cell phone signal" and it is pretty constant. And close to zero. It is not unusual to see my neighbors walking up and down the street with their phone held up in the air, looking for some energy. Friends, relatives and contractors have all commented "is this a dead zone?"

It has been this way for a long time. I could call it a (physical) constant based on common practice. But I also know that I can drive a half mile in any direction and it changes totally. If a five story building were to be put up near the highway, it might reflect energy our way and things would change without having to go somewhere else.

If we go to the Centarus System and measure things like c and G, we might find they are different. Or they might be the same now but change over time at both places because the underlying physical cause for these things changes in this part of the galaxy.

When your samples are limited in space and or time, you should be careful about considering something a constant.
</ul>And you are right, if we do find that some or all of our 'constants' drift with time and or location we will adapt. And probably make new discoveries.

LB

<b>(LB) What about pi?</b>

Hmmm ... pi might be constant, it is after all a ratio of two physical measurements, but we can't seem to establish its value - until we do, we will never know if it is a constant constant or not.

<b>(LB) Its not even mentioned in college classes when we teach students that things called constants exist.</b>

Now that the length of a meter has been redefined as the distance light travels in a certain length of time, these students will never discover if "c" is an actual constant or not. More mal-education if you ask me.