Fundamental Constant Possibly Inconsistent

dylanduck writes "Cosmologists have begun thinking that yet another fundamental constant of nature is, er, not constant. The constant in question is the ratio of a proton's mass to that of an electron. It governs the strong nuclear force but there's no explanation for why that ratio should be constant. If true it would provide support for string theory, which predicts extra spatial dimensions." From the article: "Researchers at the Free University in Amsterdam in the Netherlands and the European Southern Observatory in Chile discovered the variation in mu. They did it by comparing the spectrum of molecular hydrogen gas in the laboratory to what it was in quasars 12 billion light years away. The spectrum depends on the relative masses of protons and electrons in the molecule."

Comments

Re:Intelligent Design?

[dc29A]

Hmm, wasn't one of the arguments for intelligent design that the fundamental constants had to be "just right" for the universe to exist? If the shifts of other dimensions causes shifts in our universal constants...another nail in the necessity-of-God argument's coffin?

Won't religious fanatics just say that God is testing their faith? Or, that God is currently changing the universe, and infact that is a proof that God does exist? Faith for quite a few people is much stronger than logical reason.

Researchers at the Free University in Amsterdam..?

[kpainter]

Are we sure these researchers haven't been hittin' the weed a bit too much?

Does God exist?

[maddogsparky]

In my own experience, I have seen and heard things that are not explicable according to the accepted understanding of the world. Taking some of that experience and extrapolating to the world around me convinces me that God does exist.

How is this different then the athiest contention that everything is explicable by science? The scientific method is invariably used such that a limited observation is made and a hypothesis is formed explaining how something works. After enough limitted observations are made to "confirm" the hypothesis, the scientific comunity "believes" that the hypothesis is correct and applies it to everything else as a "law". But we all know new findings are made that invalidate old "laws" (e.g. reletivity vs newtonian).

Miracles happen, and quite often they are easily accessible to others, should they choose to challenge themselves by going to observe. Obviously, there have been many shown to be fake and others that are ambiguous. Even the Catholic church doesn't take them lightly-when pronouncing a miricle as sanctioned by the Vatican, there is a lengthly review by "independent" investigators who start off by assuming that it is a hoax.

I believe science is merely a way of explaining how God makes part of His creation function consistantly. I don't understand why He chose to do make our universe this way, but the study of the way things work (my definition of science) makes it easier to use the world around us and to prepare for future events. In the strictest sense, I am a proponent of intellegent design, but it because I find no fundamental inconsistancy with science and my religion.

Science just helps us understand how He makes things works, just like Genesis explained how the world was made to a world filled largely by farmers and nomads who didn't have the benefit of an education that included the compiled results of thousands of years of observation and analysis.

I challenge you to seek out "miracles" that have been vetted by others and are still occuring (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorruptibles). At the least, they will be a detective story you can run down and try to solve. Then again, you may find something a little harder to explain away...

Re:Does God exist?

[mvsmo]

One main difference is that science can produce objective results, whereas religion does not. What's more, though, is that science revels in the mysteries of the universe. Religious explanations for "mircales" is throwing one's arms up in the air and admitting defeat in the face of insufficient understanding. The non-scientific person sees inexplicable things as evidence that the very fabric of the universe is inexplicable, and ergo must have links to some spiritual substance. Defaulting to a belief that everything CAN be explained (but perhaps not understood) is just the consequence of realizing that what you prescribe to a god, I could just as easily link to an intergalatic space walrus. There is no necessity for any specific type of spiritual force, and because of this there is absolutely no reason to give any particular spiritual theory merit. See, I look at genuine miracles as chances to explore in greater depth how the universe works. The spiritualist explanation offers nothing new. Not only that, it completely settles the issue by fitting this data in with what amounts to a gigantic intellectual wank session, which we call theology. It tacitly WRITES OFF the true miracle, and damn son, it actually suggests we shouldn't try to understand it more. That's the greatest insult I can think of. Of course, as a mathematician I do my fair share of intellectual wanking, but it's funny how the objects I play with have a whole of a hell lot more revelance to the universe than theories about pink unicorns ever will. The only redeeming factor of religion is that it helps some people get through life. But honestly, all it takes is a little bit of thought to come up with your own guiding principles, live a good life, and maybe, just maybe, live it with joy. So in conclusion, mysteries don't point to shit. They are just that.