Slashdot Mirror
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."
...that God is a woman.
Haven't I heard that one before?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089869/
Farnsworth: These are the dark matter engine I invented. They allow my starship to travel between galaxies in mere hours.
Cubert: That's impossible. You can't go faster than the speed of light.
Farnsworth: Of course not. That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208.
...isn't constant, either. Perhaps we can rename them "fundamental variables."
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
...if the ratio is changing, doesn't that mean that either electrons or protons (probably both) have changed mass?
How the hell does that work?
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
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?
String theory makes my head hurt.
In accordance with E.O. 12958, this post is marked Unclassified.
It's interesting that they think the ratio effects the strong force. Electrons don't see the strong force, so I'm not sure that this is true - anyone know any better?
The result is accurate to 3.5 sigma - so (possibly) good to about 95 %. Based on a new model of H2 molecule, not sure how well verified it is. I suspect any fool could make any non-standard model measurement fit with string theory so I wouldn't read too much into that.
Also I would like to know little more about the error analysis here. A claim like 0.002% should be carefully checked to make sure about the measurement limitations etc.
Readers are directed to another good article (not flooded with scientific jargon).
Pi = 3.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Historically speaking, there have been many claims in the past about various fundamental constants varying with time, and pretty much all of them have eventually not been corroborated by independent experimental groups. So take this with a large grain of salt.
Also, with regard to string theory... well, string theory is more or less compatible with practically any scenario you can think of, because it's so flexible (to phrase it charitably). Any "new physics" can generally be claimed to "support" some string-inspired model. This does not in itself constitute strong evidence for string theory (since you can cook up specific non-string models too).
Here is a link to one string theorist's (opinionated) blog regarding this issue. He notes that this ratio being constant is also consistent with string theory (and is what he believes is likely to be true).
Are their instruments more precise than that? But, I found mass as an paradox when I look at it in Quantum Mechanics. We still use it in the Hamiltonian but we also rely on the electron as a dimensionless wave disturbance. Also, on a macroscopic level, we measure mass relative to other in Earth's gravity, but in Quantum Mechanics we don't factor it in because it is so small. How do we really know what the mass of the electron is. We need a more fundamental definition of what mass is before we can rely on mass ratios like mu.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
And yet you have no idea where the clitoris is.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well mathematical constants like pi really are constant which I would hope would be obvious. :) Pi doesn't have anything to do with the warping of space, it's just a value that is defined to be the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter in flat Euclidean space.
Fundamental "constants" are just values plugged into physics equations that we just happen to assume to be constant. If we find that they're not constant then we really shouldn't be calling them constants.
and says ....
"I think I have lost an electron!"
Another atom asks..
"Are you sure?"
The atom says
"I'm positive!"
I'll be here all week, enjoy the veal.....
is change.
*DrugCheese rants*
I prefer the engineers' version: E=mc^2 +/- 3dB
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
Constants aren't, variables won't.
...about contestant's incontinence? Why would I want to know about that? That's disgusting. We should be talking about more impor....
Oh.
Never mind.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
For those interested in the actual paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 96), the PDF is available on the researcher's publications page:
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~wimu/PUBS.html
Well, that was true since Einstein: The value of pi as you learned it is only valid in Euklidean (flat) space, and our space is Riemannian (curved). However, to your relieve, the Riemannian space is locally Euclidean, so if you restrict yourself to a small enough volume, your 100 digits are accurate again. Unless you get into trouble with quantum physics (I'm now too lazy to calculate if you could get 100 digits of pi right on Earth without getting close to the Planck length).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
No, not that the constant might not be constant. What's mind-blowing is that an article posted by Zonk might actually be more than mere tripe... possibly even worth reading! Man, maybe the universe *IS* just that screwed-up!
All your sig are belong to us.
Of course string theory is cnsistant with a constant mu. Any theory must be consistant with current observations. The point here is that conventional QM theory is inconsistant with a variable mu while string theory might be. This lends weight to accepting string theory as a more accurate discription of reality as it more correctly explains this observed phonominia.
JFMILLER
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
Well, it'd be an example of a piece of experimental evidence in a field where basically you can't test anything because of the lack of experimental evidence. If that mass ratio varies, then this also means we can measure how it varies, and each theory can make a prediction and... I suspect they bring up string theory because thats the one everyone knows, not because this particular piece of evidence gives support to string theory only. But on the other hand, I can't really say off the top of my head which of the successor theories predicts that the masses of composite particles can have a time dependence (which would amount to either the strength of the strong force or electromagnetic force having a time dependence, or the quark and/or electron self-masses have a time dependence). If all of them do, and can't actually predict how it would vary, then yeah this isn't so useful.
But if its true its still pretty neat and its like water in the desert for the field of post-QM/GR theories.
And they said that the ability to change the values of constants at run-time was a bug. Ha! Take that, you quiche eaters.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Why can't other constants, like say pi, be variable as well?
Pi is not a physical constant. It is the result of a mathematical expression. It can't change.
But a change in the ratio of their masses might shed some light on exactly what mass is to begin with. Yes, it's the ability to curve space, and also the resistance to being accelerated. But never mind the p/e ratio being fixed, no one really understands why the individual values are what they are to begin with.
For example, something that always gets me is the muon. Identical to the electron in virtually every way (charge, apparent point-like non-structure, lepton) except is has a mass roughly 207 times as great. Why? What does it have 207 times more of than the electron does to make it 207 times more efficient at curving space? What kind of goo is there that makes it 207 times more resistant to acceleration? And if it's truly a fundamental particle, as we suspect for leptons, why 207-point-something?
It nags at me.
Remember when the force of gravity was a constant?
Well for simple calculations about things on the earth's surface it still is, but as soon as you widen your perspective a little bit you have to start reworking where that number comes from. I don't see how this is much different than that. They look a little further and realize another 'constant' can also vary based on some principle they will hopefully figure out later with more observation.
And yet you have no idea where the clitoris is.
Even if he did, he wouldn't know how to use his digits.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
This is actually true, I do know the first 100 digits by heart.
Out of curiosity, are you an excellent driver?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Actually, the complementary variables are position and momentum, and energy and time. If you want to get really technical, you can throw in the quantum mechanical spins as well.
First of all, to stay a little bit on topic, the theoretically observed change in mu is extremely small. Physicists don't know why mu should be about 1836 instead of about 1836.5 or 3 or 11,296,428. My understanding is (and I am not an expert on this), that really small change in mu like we're talking about here wouldn't significantly affect the universe and it would still look largely like it does, but somewhat small change in mu, like an order of magnitude would, a lot. This bugs physicists because they don't know why it is what it is. Why do we have the universe we have instead of something drastically different like one that collapsed or blew apart 10 minutes after the Big Bang? The only answer they can offer is the anthropic principle: It is the way it is because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to notice.
The existence of God does not hinge on the constancy of mu. This doesn't even disprove intelligent design, which is as bad from a theological perspective as it is from a scientific perspective, being vain in both schools. Several prominent Catholic theologians have stated as much. The perplexing question of why fundamental particles are the way they are and therefore allow us to exist does not constitute a proof of God's existence, but they are rather suggestive.
For the record, I think a brief discussion of creation concepts would be appropriate in social studies (as part of a survey of religions) or in philosophy classes (the study of being) in public schools, but not in science. I want to point out that if God created the phenomena which allows and upon which we base our science, it's unlikely that we would be able to prove or disprove His existence directly through science.
I wasn't going to reply, but it seemed worthwhile to Question this statement. Who is controlled here? The billions of faithful who find meaning in life? In what way are we controlled? By adherence to principles that are conducive to the betterment of mankind like "love your neighbor as yourself" and "Thou shalt not kill?" What is the gain for these scheming, evil leaders and their P/R man? You don't exactly see a lot of priests pimping it up with 22" rims on their Lincolns and an escort on each arm. Celibacy, the difficulties of working with a faith-community, itchy robes, and a badly off-key choir...now there's a good reason to cook up a religion. I'm willing to guarantee you the overwhelming majority of religious leaders really do believe in the faith they profess. Yes there is a large degree of misdirection and a few unscrupulous groups that are nothing more than pyramid schemes or printing companies, but the basic precepts of most religions out there are founded, promoted, and executed with good intent.
The first part of your post is good...but the second one about faith leaves a lot to be desired.
The billions of faithful who find meaning in life?
Actually no one finds meaning in life from religion...because religion dictates that this life is just a test for the afterlife. People usually find meaning in life when they get rid of religions, i.e superstitions, witchcraft and the like.
In what way are we controlled?
Religion makes people pathetic command receptors. They await like sheep for an order from their master.
If people were not controlled by religion, no one would be able to start a war "in the name of God".
If people were not controlled by religion, we would not have billions of people starving while the government officials live a luxurious life.
If people were not controlled by religion, they would listen to the calls of nature and be much more free in making love. It is sad to see young people being reluctant to open themselves to the pleasures of their body just because someone told them it is a sin...and love is liberating, and only with true love one can be emotional enough to love him/herself and the world around her.
By adherence to principles that are conducive to the betterment of mankind like "love your neighbor as yourself" and "Thou shalt not kill?"
But these principles work only because people fear hell. Take away the fear of hell, and then you will see that under the hood, people are still savages. It would be much better if people really understood and embrace those principles because they wanted to, not because they fear punishment if they do not.
What is the gain for these scheming, evil leaders and their P/R man?
The gain is the majority of people are sheep that happily accept to live a shitty life, while they enjoy all the goods this planet has to offer, and then more.
You don't exactly see a lot of priests pimping it up with 22" rims on their Lincolns and an escort on each arm.
What these people do, they do it in private. Most rich people live daily with cocaine, drug and sex orgies, they are pedophiles and perverts. Especially the top officials of religions, together with politicians and other groups of people. How many cases of child abuse by Catholics would you want to be persuaded?
Of course the Pope and other church's leaders are actually going around in Lincolns!
Celibacy, the difficulties of working with a faith-community, itchy robes, and a badly off-key choir...now there's a good reason to cook up a religion.
The lower rank priests are the heros of our society...but these people would be good even if religions did not exist.
I'm willing to guarantee you the overwhelming majority of religious leaders really do believe in the faith they profess.
Judging from what they have done in the past (conspired with Hitler, for example), I really have to say you do not have a clue.
I wasn't going to reply, but it seemed worthwhile to Question this statement. Who is controlled here?
Who is being controlled by faith??? Are you seriously asking?
Okay, Let's see...
Terrorists seeking virgins in the afterlife.
Christians voting for Bush.
Christians bombing abortion clinics and/or murdering abortion doctors.
Any religious followers donating to these filthy-rich preachers.
Catholics agreeing to avoid birth control.
Catholic priests avoiding sex (added by the church so they wouldn't leave churches they had built to their heirs, a common problem a while ago)
The "Holy Wars"
The Spanish Inquisition
Government abuses (Have faith in your government)
I know you think I'm being broad, but Faith is a very broad concept. If you accept what someone else tells you without questioning it, you are leaving yourself open to all the above.
Faith is an EVIL idea, it's simply a way of hiding what you are doing behind a shroud. It is necessary in religion because there is nothing going on behind the shroud--there is no "Real World" proof of anything, so they say "Have faith" in order to validate any of it.
Letting a concept like Faith into your life also lets in all those other examples because people stop challenging things they are fed. For instance: the bible has a million contradictions, some extremely obvious, some a little more subtle. Faith requires that there are no contradictions. Every time you force these contradictions to "Work" in your mind, you are breaking your brain a little, making it easier for external forces to manipulate it. It's a long process, but it's going on en mass across the world.
Oh, and I'm also a little beyond beliving the whole "It's harmless because he only preaches don't hurt thy neighbor", this Bible is full of horrible stuff, like God telling "His People" to murder "the littl ones of every city" of his enemy.
If you ARE going to believe as a Christian, at least suck it up and face the fact that this is one nasty fellow you're following. Don't let them tell you to take on "faith" that he's all about goodness and light. This god asked for burnt offerings and told you to stone to death your newly married daughter for the crime of not being a virgin.
And don't give me that BS about "Christ put in a good word for us and fixed it" because these things are exactly what god wanted at one point, so that IS what god wants (or are you saying he was just cranky and grew out of it? He decided that the things he asked for were not such a good idea after all? AN OMNISCENT BEING DOESN'T CHANGE HIS OPINION BECAUSE HE KNEW ABOUT FUTURE FACTORS ALL ALONG!)
How does God tell us anything? Have you talked to him?
As for what you can really observe, the bible is the word of god is it not?
Where in the bible does it say to question anything? Also, if you are questioning everything, how do you know the bible is the word of god?
In fact, the bible was written by humans and the books were selected by a power-hungry church. The sections chosen were chosen specifically because they had the least conflicts and supported the church the most.
I don't really worry about weather or not those people had their hand guided by God. Maybe, maybe not. If you claim that their hands were guided by god (and therefore the bible was written by god/is his direct word) then you start to take a LOT on faith, and as I said, I don't do that--I question everything.
Ps. They just found the book of Judas. It was excluded by the church because it conflicted a couple other books and was called heresy for a long period where it's thought that every copy was burned (Yes, this is how the church chose what goes into the bible and what didn't). It covered Judas being Jesus' best friend--closer than any of the other apostles--and Jesus asked him to betray him. It's not completely validated, but it was from the right age.