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.'"

Comments

Re:first constant post

[AnonymousClown]

we need more research to tell if this is first or not.

I am unable to reproduce your results.

Don't Hold Your Breath

[CheshireCatCO]

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.

Re:Don't Hold Your Breath

[Zocalo]

The fine structure constant is given as being equal to "e^2/hc", so if the FSC is not a constant then one (or more) of the other values must also be a variable. Take your pick between:

• e, The elementary charge
• h, The reduced Planck constant
• c, The speed of light in a vacuum

If any of those constants turned out to in fact be variable, or even a "constant" which has varied over the lifetime of the universe, then the implications would be profound to say the least.

Re: Don't Hold Your Breath

[Black Parrot]

The fine structure constant is given as being equal to "e^2/hc", so if the FSC is not a constant then one (or more) of the other values must also be a variable.

Or maybe the "2" is changing?

Not mathematically, but 1.999--> 2.001 or such.

"The Economist" article

[PolygamousRanchKid]

This week's "The Economist" has a good article on this: http://www.the-economist.com/node/16930866