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.
A while back, didn't some scientists manage to slow the speed of light down to something around 60 miles an hour in their lab? That's definitely not 180,000 m/s. Kind of interesting, did Einstein think C would be constant in his calculations?
It's that same group saying the same thing again. Although I haven't reviewed their latest paper, I remember that I wasn't impressed with the statistical analysis of their data, as of the previous paper.
Personally, I won't find the evidence convincing untill another group takes some their own data and gets similar results. Given that many astronomers have similar sentiments, it seems that giving VLT time to the same group seems not the best use of VLT time.
Of course, if no other astronomers find the likelyhood of the discovery worth the effort of making the observations, then it may be difficult to get independant confirmation. Given that it would be a really big deal if true, I think that says a lot about how seriously the astronomical community takes these claims.
The article actually doesn't really hint that 'c' is changing, which is good, because it's not clear what would be meant by that. The article says that several physicists have previously wondered if it could change. It then goes on to quote a modern physicist as saying that they were wrong.
I think c is best thought of as a man made constant. Just as I might say that there are 2.54 centimetres per inch, I can say that there are ~3*10^8 metres per second. Neither of these really contains any information about the universe outside of our perception of it. It is simply a statement of how one one system of measurement compares to another. 2.54 centimetres per second evaluates to unity (the number 1, with no units) if you actually evaluate it. Likewise, physicists commonly use unity as the speed of light, because in a very meaningful way, it is.
If I suddenly magically increased c by 10%, that would be indisinguishable from stretching the universe by 10% in every spacial direction. Consider that the speed of light it essentially unity, and that expressing it otherwise is really more a statement of our systems of measurement that we use than of physical reality. This makes it seem silly to say that I have magically increased c by 10% and makes it seem more reasonable to say that I have stretched the universe by 10% in every direction.
Arrr, it be the infamous pirate, No Beard Pete!
Quoth the article:
"If this is correct, it will radically change our view of the Universe. We have to be cautious but it could be revolutionary. We have seen something in our data - but is it what we think?"
I like it when scientists talk about their theories in this manner. On one hand you have a whole body of researchers, scientists, and journals who are so afraid to rock the status quo that they refuse to research (or publish) controversial information. On the other, you have scientists and/or crackpots who are so paranoid and skittish towards working within the peer reveiw system that we'll probably never gain access to their research, some of which may be quite important and revolutionary.
(I quit my physics major a year in and switched to CS. At what point do 'paranoia' and 'ego-building' become required courses?)
I think this is a nice middle ground. These guys have announced a neat finding, with the caveat that they are still in a thourough 'error-checking' mode and are looking for problems with their own research and are implicitly inviting others to do the same.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Seastead this.
Alternately, if we're shrinking on a hyperbolic space (ie staying the same size on an ever growing space), then pi should be getting smaller.
Actually, unlike 0, 1, and e, pi is not "a fundemental constant", but a convenient artefact that allows circles and spheres to be expressed. For example, one can use any number "k", and express pi in terms of "k". The definition of k would be different, but that's ok.
For example, if k were pi/4, we would say that the circumference of the circle is 8kr, and its area 4kr^2. For diameters, circ = 4kd, and area = kd^2. This make the circumference and area k times that of the circumscribing square.
Also, I have played with a set of mathematics, that makes the surface of the sphere 8 pi r^2, with pi=3.14159265359 &c. This has an effect on the "rationalisation" in physics, where 4pi gets replaced by 8pi.
Mathematics has a lot of preconcieved notions in it.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
Over the past two years, I've developed a decent "haha, only serious" model of the universe. It works sort of like this:
About two years ago, Slashdot ran a story talking about the theoretical upper limit of computer speed (sorry, couldn't find a link). Basically, the idea was to convert the mass of your computer to energy to allow ALL of it to work for you. This energy, in the form of light, will create intereference patterns - just like you did with the two slits in 5th grade science - and that's how the computer (which now resembles a small star) does it's computing kinda thing (gross oversimplification of what the article said, but that's the gist). Now if you compress enough energy into a singularity, you have pretty much (and the "pretty much" is important) infinite computing power (due to time dialation and so on).
Well, it just so happens that God has one of these things on his desk. Our universe is a program running inside this uber-computer that resembles a black hole.
Earlier I said the processing power of this computer would be "pretty much" infinite. Well - it isn't big enough to handle every particle in the universe simultaneously. Some of the universe is "swapped out". Ever sit down at the computer to read slashdot, and whammo, four hours have gone by? Wonder what happened to the time? You were swapped out, that's what.
There also appears to be problems with the branch prediction unit of this computer. Deja vu? branch prediction made an error, and the queue had to be recalculated. Ever reached in your pocket and pulled out a $5 bill you didn't know you had? bad branch prediction.
If a tree falls in the woods, and no one was there to witness, does it make a sound? No. It didn't even fall. Actually, it wasn't even there. Years later, when a witness comes upon the site, all the events since the last witness came by are quickly approximated and the end results are what the new witness sees. What constitutes a witness? People? squirrels? I dunno. Doesn't matter, really.
Can't remember if you left the oven on? Well, both options are possible, and both have been approximated. The appropriate one will be chosen when someone sees the end result (either your house burns down, or it doesn't).
Lots of strange events can be explained with this model of the universe:
Reincarnation/past lives/Ghosts? Bad garbage collection, or the Divine Coder forgot to unallocate memory.
ESP? Packet snooping.
Why can't objects with mass go faster than the speed of light? Think of everything like an object in C++. If you have a "mass" property, your object is too big to fit through the "bus" in one "fetch cycle", so your "position" property can't be updated as fast as say...a photon, which fits through the bus in one cycle.
Why is the rules of Quantum Mechanics so strange/Planck's Constant? In the world of computers we know, what's smaller than a bit? Looking at things on that small a scale, we're seeing the individual bits flip from 1 to 0 in God's workstation. Of course it will look odd, and it won't mean much when compared to the world as we perceive it. Combine that with the fact that most of the universe is approximated, and you end up with really strange things happening on that small a scale.
Why are some people luckier than others? Not all people call the same random number generator, or maybe some people can call it with a certain "seed value".
Bermuda triangle? think of something like a bad sector on a disk, or a faulty RAM stick - of course, the computer this runs on doesn't use disks or RAM sticks, but it's still a decent analogy.
Jesus? You play Quake/Unreal/The Sims, don't you? It just so happens that God's version of "The Sims" is a hell of a lot better than yours.
Don't think of this as something akin to the movie "The Matrix" - because these rules we live by in this universe can't be broken. There's no dodging bullets. there's no agents... We were created parts of this simulation, and are ourselves simulated and no more or less real than the world we live in - and there's no way to get out of this simulation.
However, maybe there is a way to use the rules to our advantage? But to do that, you need to know the real rules behind the physics we see. We'd need to know what's happening to those individual bits in the processor. If we can affect those often enough, maybe we could effectively beat the rules...?
More important is this question: Were we created on purpose, or is this entire universe of ours that exists inside God's Workstation meant to be something else entirely? Maybe we were supposed to model plasma dynamics, and the system taking on intelligence was a by-product of the genetic algorithm that was used? Or maybe we're something like an AI experiment?
Maybe I'm missing something from the article, but I don't think that "constants" like alpha changing is a new idea (though it is very cool if alpha changing over time can be directly observed like this). Changing coupling "constants" is already a part of the established "Standard Model" of physics, and is an essential feature of Grand Unified Theories.
Grand Unified Theories rely on all of the interaction strengths for all known forces (Strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force, and sometimes gravity) becoming the same at some energy scale earlier on during the formation of the Universe. In the present Universe, the strong force that holds quarks together is much stronger than the electromagnetic force, but if GUTs hold true then they were much closer earlier on.
See here for a graph illustrating this effect, or rather its failure for one particular GUT theory. This is the first I found using a quick google search for "GUT" and "coupling constant"; it is a common plot shown for papers on GUTs in general.
Its been a couple of years since I studied this stuff. I'd be interested to know if this article is pointing to something new theoretically.
Please note that it's always possible to say "maybe there's some other unknown explanation" for any phenomenon... the best we can do is rule out all known alternatives. (And even if there were some other explanation, it would probably be labelled as "variation in the `effective' fine structure constant", since it has the same observed effects as an actual variation.