Constants Not Constant?

grytpype writes: "According to this story, a team of astronomers have determined (based on their observations of distant quasars) that [certain physical constants] may have been different in the far past of the universe. The discovery (if validated) is said to be good news for string theorists."

Comments

Re:Evolution vs. Creation debate

[ryants]

So, this is good news for string theorists, bad news for evolutionists

Huh? What does biology have to do with anything here? You're comparing apples and oranges.

After all, if you can't count on the 'constants' being the exact same value in the past, how can you actually date the age of the earth, fossils, the universe, etc. accurately?

IF the findings are true (remember, these are very preliminary findings), THEN it takes something like 12 billion years for very very very minute changes to occur. I think dating fossils that are less than 4 billion years old is not going to be affected much, if at all. And these results really don't have any significant implications for the age of the universe.

What does E=mc^2 mean to you?

[roystgnr]

To me, it means:

Energy = mass * (speed of light) squared

This equation tells us how much energy we get from reactions that destroy mass, such as the radioactive decay of elements inside the Earth, or the nuclear fusion inside the Sun.

Now, if you want light in the past to travel, say, 6 billion (current) light years in the space of 6000 years, you need to speed it up one million times. In other words, you increase the amount of energy released by nuclear reactions by one trillion.

I'm not an astrophysicist, and the question "what would happen to the Sun if fusion released a trillion times as much energy" is a complicated one, but even if it didn't go nova I'd be surprised if Earth was still at a comfortable temperature.

I'm not a geophysicist either, but the question "what would happen to the Earth if radioactive elements released a trillion times as much energy" is a relatively (excuse the pun) easy one. Estimating the heat production of the Earth's core in this fashion at 4 * 10^13 watts, we can calculate the heat production of the early creationist Earth to be approximately 4 * 10^25 watts.

For comparison's sake, the Earth currently receives (1353 W/m^2) * pi * (6,360,000 m)^2 = approximately 1.7 * 10^17 watts from the Sun. So really, even if there was no Sun shining on Adam and Eve, they would still be getting about 230 times as much energy as we do today, raising the equilibrium temperature of the planet to a nice toasty 750 degrees Celsius. Maybe that explains Noah's flood, huh? All that water to cover the planet must have been in water vapor form before we cooled to under boiling temperatures.

Of course, if you want to explain just how *much* of those radioactive elements have decayed away in the multi-billion year old rocks we find lying around, you have to increase the rate of reaction (m, in the above equation) by another million fold. That brings our equilibrium temperature to about 5600 degrees Celsius... but wait, at that temperature all the rock is molten and radioactive decay products wouldn't get trapped next to their generating elements anyway.

I love creationist theories. My personal favorite are the wacky explanations of where all the water for Noah's flood came from ("vapor canopy"? anyone want to calculate the air pressure under something like that!?) and where it went.

For future reference, if you really think that Genesis is literal truth and God behaves like a parlor magician, then answers like "He created starlight already on it's way to Earth" and "he made ten million cubic miles of water teleport to deep space", however implausible sounding, are irrefutable. Once you try to explain miracles in terms of science, you're going to have to deal with its conclusions.

To be succint...

[2nd Post!]

You've just described science and knowledge, my friend.

Everything is a crutch until we get a better description, ad infintum. From Aristotle to Galileo, to Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, to Feynman, Hawking, and Thorne. Each generation of scientists and mathematicians uses the truths of the previous generation, breaks it, and refashions it according to modern experiences.

It's the *strength* of science, not a weakness.

Re:Good news for creationists too

[Christianfreak]

given the history of creationist lies

Before I go on let me say that I'm not a creationist and I don't really care how the universe was formed. (It was and I'm here and okay with that). I just have one question: How can you claim someone is lying when we are discussing theories? Being raised in a religious environment I must say that yes some creationist's are quacks, but some of them have done good research and have good evidence to support what they believe. On the flip side some evolutionists are quacks but some also have good theories. Just because at theory is main stream doesn't mean that it has to be true (like the theory that M$ products are great... we all know about that one :)). And religion aside, if someone did prove that someone or something created the universe wouldn't that be just as important scientifically to definitive proof that there was a Big Bang[tm] or that evolution occurs? I certainly hope there is otherwise we have some pretty biased scientists running around out there.

Basically though, please back-up your claims before running around calling people liars, thanks.

Constants not constant

[Tattva]

More and more I think that theories in physics are nothing more than successive approximations and we'll never know the true nature of existence. With some of these theories it almost feels like someone is playing a trick on us and every time we see through it a new layer of tricks is added.

Relevance?

[Havokmon]

"The implication, if it is true, would just be so enormous that it's something people should look at and take seriously," Dr. Kolb said. "This would upset the apple cart."

Now I know what non-computer people think when they hear us ranting about how MS's oppressive tactics are keeping the world from experiencing the best software available:
"Whatever buddy, in YOUR world maybe.."