Slashdot Mirror
More on the Fine Structure Constant
Bonker writes "Neat news from the Beeb. It turns out that data collected from observation of quasars indicates that the fine structure constant of the universe, aka 'Alpha', may have changed since the universe began. It may have been very slightly smaller than it is right now. The article hints that other constants we're familiar with, such as high, holy 'c', may also vary over time. Of course values can't have changed dramatically, because that would mean that low-weight atoms such as carbon would be unstable, and without carbon, there wouldn't be anyone around to measure the fine structure constant anyway." We ran a story about this last year. It looks like the team has continued to check their work for errors and hasn't found any yet.
No. c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The slowed light down by passing it through a certain material.
You can't change the speed of light (in vacuum).
Such a change would be undetectable. All you can do is distinguish the cases of c being 0, finite>0, or infinite. Real natural constants have to be dimensionless, so a change can not be compensated by rescaling measuring rods and clocks. The fine structure constant, of course, is dimensionless.
Um...c is not a "man-made" constant. Although you're right that it's simpler to set it to 1 and have all the units change around it, increasing c by 10% would have some noticeable effect.
c is the speed at which electromagnetic waves propagate. calling it the speed of light is somewhat of a misnomer; it might be better to say that light moves at the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves, since it is, after all, an electromagnetic wave. Furthermore, it turns out that the wave equation implies that c = 1 / square_root(e_naught * mu_naught), where e_naught is the permittivity of free space (ratio of charge to electric flux in vacuum) and mu_naught is the permeability of free space (ratio of current to magnetic flux in vacuum). These two are experimental constants which the speed of light happens to depend on (although now the speed of light is taken to be a fundamental definition). Therefore, an increase the speed of light by 10% would imply an increase in either or both of the fundamental constants, which may have drastic effects, comparatable to G (the universal gravitational constant) being 10% greater.
When creationists put forward stuff like the St Helens lava, they move themselves firmly into the fraud category (I'm talking about the authors of the research, not you). K/Ar dating cannot be used on young samples (30 years). This is widely known. I understand that the lab which Austin submitted the work to has a disclaimer about this. Yet there isn't a mention of this in the paper. What next will they try to do? Measure a atom with a meter ruler. What you have presented is nothing but fraud designed to trick laypeople.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Oops. OK once again, properly formatted. Way to mess the post up.
It seems possible that our disciplines of science and natural history might actually be driven farther apart, as we lose any reliable base indicators on which to base assumptions about the past.
AFAIK natural history is science. Besides if you read the article you would realise we don't loose anything, because the experiment can show what alpha was. If you know how a constant has changed you can take it into account so your indicator is fine, although the maths becomes more complex.
For some in the scientific orthodoxy, this is anathema and they will fight it tooth and nail to the bitter end, for it forces them to accept a reality that they have long denied. The liberals constantly tell us that because of the relatively slow travel of light from distant galaxies, it must have been traveling for long periods of time, and the universe must therefore be quite old (billions and billions... you know the drill).
What has being a liberal got to do with anything? Can only liberals be scientists? Non-liberals must be Creationists? Not to mention all kinds of other methods of dating planets, stars, rocks and the like.
Now their rationalizing will be laid bare and they must admit that the Bible has again withstood vigorous attempts at disproof, that they have a Creator and are therefore accountable to Him.
And all logic breaks down. How do you get to this from a possible slight change in alpha? Lets assume that we find the constants do change over time and it overthrows current thinking on the creation of the universe it doesn't prove Creationism or a Creator.
If you want to believe in Creationism as a matter of faith that's your choice. If you want to advocate it as science you need to do real science (work from evidence to conclusion, not backwards, actually have some evidence etc.) and simply attacking current theories doesn't really help.
Creationism doesn't have magic win by default clause, disproving another theory (technically Creationism isn't even a theory, its a hypothesis) does nothing at all to prove Creationism or that the Bible is literal truth.
Mant