Slashdot Mirror
Fine-Structure Constant Maybe Not So Constant
Kilrah_il writes "The fine-structure constant, a coupling constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction, has been measured lately by scientists from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia and has been found to change slightly in light sent from quasars in galaxies as far back as 12 billion years ago. Although the results look promising, caution is advised: 'This would be sensational if it were real, but I'm still not completely convinced that it's not simply systematic errors' in the data, comments cosmologist Max Tegmark of MIT. Craig Hogan of the University of Chicago and the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., acknowledges that 'it's a competent team and a thorough analysis.' But because the work has such profound implications for physics and requires such a high level of precision measurements, 'it needs more proof before we'll believe it.'"
we need more research to tell if this is first or not.
By comparing the light absorbed by the atoms in the gas clouds with the light absorbed by the same species of atoms on Earth, researchers can attempt to calculate the value of the fine-structure constant at different distances and times in the universe.
The article doesn't say how they correct for radial movement (relative to us) in the gas clouds. A cloud experiencing time dilation should absorb different wavelengths of light.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
This isn't the first time that some team has claimed this. Around 2000, someone made the same claim. I recall it not standing up when other teams checked it.
Measurements like this have been done before and usually show a constant, er, constant to within experimental uncertainty.
Note, for example, this paragraph buried at the end of the article:
Nonetheless, the study “is as speculative as the previous claims,” asserts Patrick Petitjean of the Institute of Astrophysics in Paris, whose team has looked for variations in the fine-structure constant with the Very Large Telescope as far back as about 11.5 billion years ago and found none (SN: 4/8/04, p. 301).
In other words, I wouldn't get excited at all yet.
Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant
An evaluation from a practicing physicist would be appreciated.
This week's "The Economist" has a good article on this: http://www.the-economist.com/node/16930866
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Ok, I guess 9 years is acceptable for a dupe, and tbh I didn't even read the article, in /.'s finest tradition, so it might be an actual new development :-)
Kinda sure there was some piece of news on the subject from around 2005-2006 too, but can't find it atm. Meh, google-fu weak at 3am, should sleep, work in under 5 hours.
Vacuum cleaners suck. Kings rule.
Writing as an outside critic of academic physics, I am still very appreciative of the old paper by Max Planck on the constants of physics. The paper is a prime part of relativity theory (the theory of invariants as it is better termed).
The speed of light, the Planck constant, the gravitational constant, the magnetic constant, and the Boltzmann constant serve to define units of measurement. So any variation of those constants only reduces to some weird physical observation that is correctable by fixing the calibration, not to a provable variation of the constants.
If the charge of the electron changes, then you have nonconservation or nonlocal transfer of charges to deal with. These alternatives are mathematically intractable; the Bianchi identities that apply to conservation are very hard to dispose of.
Michael J. Burns
All of science is theory, even logical proofs.
Quantum Electro-Dynamics, not Quod Est Demonstratum.
Who is John Cabal?
quod erat demonstrandum
How come all these semi-science articles have to quote someone else saying 'needs more proof' etc.? The primary researchers almost invariably say the same themselves. Is the science not worth wasting the ink if it can't be made to appear as if it's an argument? Being skeptical yourself is good. Someone else being skeptical is trivial. It's one thing to interview someone else if they have something to add, but to do it just to hang a name on the preplanned 'controversial' portion is st00pid to the point of insulting to bother interviewee and reader. As for the 'science' 'writers', most obviously aren't very good at either.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Duplicate joke for a duplicate claim:
Planck's constant (h) increased in value this morning to roughly 50 joule-seconds, sending the DJIA to a 95% confidence interval between 0 and 15,000, and increasing the wavelength of a penny moving at a brisk walk to a value on the order of it's own diameter, so that macroscopic, every day objects behave as waves instead of billiard balls. Tennis players in central park (whose velocity could not be determined as of this printing) may have been alarmed to find tennis balls which hit their rackets were defracted and created interference patterns on the fence behind, instead of going into the opposing court.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
n/t
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Just to clarify. These new results suggest that data from quasar absorption lines is also consistent with spatial variation of the fine structure constant. This was the same group that analysed data from Keck a few years back to show possible evidence for time variation. Since then, and rather before, a number of other groups (like me) have been looking for similar evidence in other systems: the Oklo natural reactors, atomic clock comparisons, optical frequency comparisons, .... Intending to confirms these results, and to start to consider possible systematic errors, the group at NSW did the same analysis on data from a second telescope in the southern hemisphere. The initial analysis was inconsistent with the original Keck results, but by also accounting for the position of the sources in the sky, all the data was found to be consistent with spatial variations. Each telescopes data set individually suggests a dipole variation with an axis along about the same line. Together there is a few sigma effect. Time variation is also still possible but the statistics are not yet good enough to see the distinction.
There is still the possibility of a tragic conspiracy of systematic errors. As is stands this provides a good explanation of why laboratory experiments have so far been unable to detect time variation of \alpha at the same level as the original Quasar data. If the variation is real annual variations should be detectable due to the movement of the earth around the sun at a part in 10^20, and due to the movement of the sun around the galaxy at a part in 10^18 or 10^19. Current experiments are sensitive to changes of about a part in 10^16.
The implications would be profound. There are plenty of plausible mechanisms for generating such a variation, but none is yet compelling. Hopefully it is not as boring as another scalars field and spontaneous symmetry breaking. Then there is also the business about position invariance being broken at a certain level.