Are Constants Really Constant?

 Throughout our journey in science and mathematics, we’ve been introduced to the concept of constants—unchanging values like the gravitational constant ( G ), Planck’s constant ( h ), or the mathematical ( \pi ). They’re treated as fixed anchors of the universe, helping us make sense of how things behave. But a deeper look reveals a surprising question: Are these constants actually constant?

Let’s take the Hubble constant ( H_0 ) as an example. This value represents the rate at which the universe is expanding. One of its practical uses is to estimate the age of the universe—roughly ( 1/H_0 ) gives a ballpark figure of about 14 billion years. But here's the catch: if this value gives 14 billion years today, it would still give 14 billion years a billion years from now unless we updated the constant. That feels paradoxical—how can the age of the universe remain the same unless the constant shifts?

This leads to a broader thought. Many constants weren’t so much “declared” by nature as they were discovered through our calculations. They often appear when scientists refine theories to match observations as closely as possible. These constants help align elegant math with messy reality.

But what happens when we see farther? The observable universe may only be a fraction of what’s truly out there. If future telescopes allow us to peer deeper, our calculations may shift, and constants like ( H_0 ) might need to adapt. In that sense, a constant can be less of an immutable truth and more of a placeholder for what we don’t yet know.

There’s also an intriguing philosophical twist—what if a completely different form of intelligence tried to describe the universe? Their perception might lead to entirely different models, equations, and constants. So maybe constants aren't purely objective truths, but instead observer-dependent tools shaped by the limits of our instruments, cognition, and perspective.

From this view, constants feel more like finely tuned bridges between theory and observation, rather than immutable laws written into the fabric of reality. And maybe that's not a flaw—it’s part of the beauty of science: forever adapting, questioning, and reaching for a more complete picture of the cosmos.

 

 

Time Dilation and Its Impact on Our Understanding of Reality

 As a physics student, I’ve often heard that time slows down near massive objects, but I’ve struggled with understanding what this truly means. While it’s commonly said that "clocks slow down" in high-gravity environments, it seems almost unbelievable that spending just one or two years near such an object could correspond to decades passing on Earth. The key insight here is that it's not just clocks ticking slower, it’s everything.

In a stronger gravitational field, all biological and physical processes slow down. Our heart rate decreases, neural activity slows, and bodily functions adjust to this new time frame. However, we wouldn’t perceive this slowdown, because our brains would also be affected, meaning everything would feel normal from our own perspective. The fundamental laws governing biological rhythms, chemical reactions, and even atomic processes effectively redefine themselves according to the gravitational environment.

From this perspective, time may not be a fundamental property of the universe, but rather an emergent phenomenon—possibly a result of entropy. While it feels real, we might only experience it psychologically, not as an independent physical entity like matter or energy. This aligns with certain interpretations in quantum mechanics, where particles do not physically experience time, yet still undergo changes in state.

If time isn’t fundamental, then many physical laws—such as velocity, acceleration, and causality—would need to be redefined. Without time, the concept of cause and effect becomes problematic, as we wouldn’t be able to say "this happened before that" in a sequential way. Instead, events might exist in a superposition, where past, present, and future coexist simultaneously, much like quantum states.

Quantum entanglement further challenges the idea of sequential causality. When two entangled particles interact, any change in one immediately affects the other, without requiring a time delay. This suggests that some processes in nature might operate outside the conventional flow of time, supporting the idea that time itself is not a fundamental necessity.

If this hypothesis is correct, then what we experience as "time" might simply be the transition between different quantum states, rather than an independently existing dimension. However, this raises deeper questions: Does quantum superposition mean we are limited to specific transitions rather than infinite possibilities? Could the passage of time simply be the way we interpret state changes rather than a separate entity guiding them?

 

Why Do We Even Need the Big Bang to Explain Our Universe?

 Almost everyone has heard of the Big Bang at some point and imagined how incredible it must have been to give birth to such a vast universe. But have you ever wondered why we even need the Big Bang to explain things? After all, we’ve never actually seen it—not even with powerful telescopes like JWST—so how can we be sure something like that ever happened?

If the universe could exist as a single point out of nowhere, then why couldn’t it have simply existed forever in its current form? Could there have been another way for the universe to begin, other than the Big Bang? While we can never be 100% certain that the Big Bang happened exactly as we think, several physical theories require it for the universe to behave the way we observe today.

Let’s explore some of the strongest evidence supporting the Big Bang:

1. The Universe is Expanding—And Faster at Greater Distances

Observations from modern telescopes show that the universe is expanding, and the farther away we look, the faster galaxies seem to be moving. This means that if we reverse this expansion in time, everything will eventually converge to a single point—suggesting a beginning.

2. Einstein’s General Relativity Theory

Einstein’s general theory of relativity changed our understanding of gravity, showing that it’s not just a force but a curve in spacetime. Initially, Einstein believed the universe was static, but when he applied his equations, they naturally led to a universe that was either expanding or contracting. Since a static universe was the prevailing belief, he introduced the cosmological constant to artificially force his equations to describe an unchanging universe. Later, when observations proved the universe was expanding, Einstein regretted this adjustment, calling it his “greatest blunder.”

3. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) – The First Light

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is often called the first light of the universe. For the first 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe was so dense that light couldn’t escape—it kept bouncing around within the hot plasma. But as the universe expanded and cooled, atoms formed, allowing light to travel freely for the first time.

How does this support the Big Bang? Based on calculations about the age, shape, dark matter, dark energy, and expansion rate of the universe, physicists predicted that if the Big Bang had occurred, there should be leftover radiation from that early period. When scientists searched for it using large telescopes, they found exactly what was predicted—the CMB, a faint glow of radiation spread across the sky.

4. The Problem with a Static Universe

If the universe had always existed in its current form without a Big Bang, it would need a perfect balance of gravitational forces to prevent collapse or expansion. However, no known physical mechanism could maintain such an equilibrium indefinitely. The universe would either contract under gravity or expand due to energy, making a truly static universe unstable.

Conclusion

These are some of the most convincing pieces of evidence supporting the Big Bang. However, since we have never directly seen the Big Bang, we can’t say with absolute certainty that it happened exactly as we theorize. As technology advances, we may uncover new evidence or even develop alternative theories about the universe’s origins. Until then, the Big Bang remains the best explanation we have for how everything began.