• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Physical constants, changing?

QUOTE]Originally posted by wollery
"Possible, but unlikely, although there is a theory that it is variable in very low acceleration cases (ie at very large distances from gravitating masses)."

Agreed .The gravitational attraction of bodies towards the boundary of the Hubble Volume exert less attractions towards each other ( as do bodies closer in, good 'ole square of the distance ) but that does not mean that Grav changes .

"Another distinct possibility, and this would affect all our distance measurements to high redshift galaxies. This would, however, lead to predictable effects that could be observed, so this theory can be tested."

There has been a few new thoughts on VSL , João Magueijo ,Theoretical physicist at Imperial College, Et.Al. have proposed a higher c before the first "inflationary" period following the BB . Several others ( Steer, Chakraborty)are trying to incorporate this idea into string theory. (Marage or ghost cosmology) Mainstream science , published work , doesn't make it true but interesting none the less.
So maybe c isn't ( wasn't ) constant.

"No it doesn't - Michelson-Morley experiment, there is no preferred direction, no "Aether""

Well this is about the most intriguing thing in Physics today. The fact that MMX was possibly faulty by design ( 2D measurement gradient) and Einstien's "Greatest mistake" , Lambda, was not a mistake after all. The fact that there is measurable acceleration of bodies at the outer most reaches of HV may mean that Ho may also not be a constant , unless integrating L into the equation. Guess we will know with more certainty when the SNAP probe goes up.



"There's no reason why any of the constants shouldn't change, except that if too many of them changed by too much then it's probable that we wouldn't be around to ask if they had."

Strong Anthropic principle? =)

[/QUOTE]
 
In anorther thread on this subject I brought up the VSL theories, JJ pointed out that the 'fine structure constant' doesn't change when we look at distant objects in the universe. although there were some canadians who found a shift in alpha.
 
Let's look at the consequences of changing constants.

First of all, if some of these constants were changing as quickly as the claimants say they are, it's usually pretty easy to show that e.g. the Earth and the Solar system wouldn't last more than a few thousand years before going kerflooie in some rather dramatic way, which is probably why creationists like it so much. But the best evidence is that the Earth has been around longer than kerflooie time.

Yet could they change but just a lot more slowly? Problem here. One of the greatest but least remembered discoveries of 20th century physics was Noether's Theorem, which shows that some physical laws are directly related to symmetries. If some constant changes in such a way that it is possible to detect with a self-contained apparatus out in the middle of nowhere, then that violates time symmetry. If time symmetry is violated, then conservation of energy must be wrong. Because energy is related to momentum, conservation of momentum must be wrong as well, or in an Einsteinian view, conservation of energy/momentum is wrong.

If conservation of energy/momentum doesn't hold over the long term, then everything about the universe is up for grabs. So this is not just a minor tweak to physics.
 
T'ai Chi said:

the velocity of light might change with time, or
Click to expand...

This is true... I heard it from some young earth creationists who were claiming that the speed of light changes, allowing close objects (like other stars/galaxies) to look 'far away'. Since the earth is only 6000 years old, it must be true.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Here are some I pulled from the paper:
Click to expand...

If you mean Sheldrake's "The Variability of Fundamental Constants", could you please "pull" where Sheldrake points to his evidence that the constants actually fluctuate?
 
Epepke,
Actually if the positive acceleration holds as per observational data , the sun,earth and the rest of the universe won't go ker-flooie but dark, cold and eternally silent. ( this in regards to Ho not being a constant where Omega ~1 ). We will have a clearer idea when SNAP and the ESA probes go up.For those unaware of these programs the probes will observing "microlensing" of type 1A supernova to help explain accelerating expansion. The probes will also provide a clue as to wether "dark bodies" are common or not.(missing mass problem)

The VSL idea takes place in a very small time scale following the BB and reconciles some of the problems ( blotchiness, ect.. ) that the standard inflationary model suggests and leads up to the present functional universal model. It holds that the universe is flat and open. Recently (2003) Magueijo and others are floating a concept for PRESENT VSL in certain "zones", this seems more problematic as the VSL in Planck time after BB proposes less of a violation of SRT.


Quote "If some constant changes in such a way that it is possible to detect with a self-contained apparatus out in the middle of nowhere, then that violates time symmetry."

How do you arrive to this conclusion? What constant? If you mean Pi or Log-e I agree with you . Others are not so inviolable . After all there are dichotomies of quantization at QM, Newtonian and Cosmological scales, that's the holy grail isn't it? The reconciliation of QM and GRT. The Observed data shows that objects at the furthest reaches of our technology to detect are indeed accelerating. There are hundreds of observations at different locations by different people at different times, are these observations wrong? Prahaps the theories are incorrect and we have yet to define the mechanism that makes things function.
 
epepke said:
Let's look at the consequences of changing constants.

First of all, if some of these constants were changing as quickly as the claimants say they are, it's ...
Click to expand...

Many of them are not claiming (or calculating in some cases) that they change quickly at all. In fact, a lot of what I've read has them claiming that they are changing very very slowly, and detection is even a problem.
 
about energy conservation: If G changes, I can lift an object when G is small, then lower it when G is large. Voila, free energy.

I see nothing wrong with the experiment Sheldrake proposes at the end of his article. I found the rest of the article very frustrating to read, however---it is filled with misleading rhetoric, in my opinion.

Why does he mention, for example, that Roemer's value for the speed of light differs by 30 percent from the currently accepted value? That was the first finite value anybody ever got for the speed of light; of course it wasn't very accurate. Does he really think the speed of light changed that much since 1676? Does he think the accepted value will ever again be as low as Roemer's?

Fine, later results often differ from previous ones by more than their standard errors. Big deal. Systematic errors exist. The best way to detect them is to give the standard error that is justified by the data, rather than an artificially inflated one "just in case."<blockquote>There is no excuse whatever for omitting to give a properly determined standard error. It is a necessity in stating the accuracy of any interpretation of the data, if the law is right; if the law is wrong, it is necessary to the discovery that it is wrong. All statisticians will agree with me here, but my own applications are mostly in subjects where the need is still very inadequately appreciated. [...] The usual reason given for the omission is that there may be some other source of error and that the statement of a standard error expresses a claim of an accuracy that future events may not justify. This rests on a complete failure to understand the nature of induction. It is essential to the possibility of induction that we shall be prepared for occasional wrong decisions; to require finality is to deny the possibility of scientific inquiry at all. [...] What we should do is (1) always to draw the most probable inference from the data available, (2) to recognize that with the best intentions on our part the most probably inference may turn out to be wrong when other data become available, (3) to present our information in such a form that, if we do make mistakes, they can be found out. This can be done by a consistent process, and should not be confused with guesswork about other possible effects before there is any evidence for their existence or any estimate of their amount.

---Sir Harold Jeffreys, Theory of Probability, pp. 410-411</blockquote>(Incidentally, I found an excellent account of Roemer's determination of the speed of light, written by the well-known historian of science, I. Bernard Cohen.)
 
T'ai Chi said:


Many of them are not claiming (or calculating in some cases) that they change quickly at all. In fact, a lot of what I've read has them claiming that they are changing very very slowly, and detection is even a problem.
Click to expand...

Who is "them?" What "papers?"
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
Epepke,
Actually if the positive acceleration holds as per observational data , the sun,earth and the rest of the universe won't go ker-flooie but dark, cold and eternally silent.
Click to expand...

That's kerflooie enough for me.

Quote "If some constant changes in such a way that it is possible to detect with a self-contained apparatus out in the middle of nowhere, then that violates time symmetry."

How do you arrive to this conclusion?
Click to expand...

It's pretty much by definition. If I can do an experiment later, as opposed to earlier, and the results are different, even if all local effects are compensated for, that's a violation of time symmetry by the definition of the term. And if there's a time symmetry violation, you have to deal with it according to Noether's theorem, either by concluding that the corresponding symmetry law is violated, or by some other means, such as declaring that the system is not describable by a Lagrangian.

What constant? If you mean Pi or Log-e I agree with you.
Click to expand...

Pi, actually, could change in response to local conditions, such as spacetime curvature. A fixed Pi, obviously, only applies to En.

Others are not so inviolable . After all there are dichotomies of quantization at QM, Newtonian and Cosmological scales, that's the holy grail isn't it? The reconciliation of QM and GRT. The Observed data shows that objects at the furthest reaches of our technology to detect are indeed accelerating. There are hundreds of observations at different locations by different people at different times, are these observations wrong? Prahaps the theories are incorrect and we have yet to define the mechanism that makes things function.
Click to expand...

Is there some English->Swahili translator automatically operating on this forum? I can't think how to make it clearer. If an experiment measures a different aggregate result only due to time and not due to any difference in local conditions, then Noether's theorem should apply and would necessarily show a violation of conservation laws, unless you can come up with a way according to which Noether's theorem does not apply.

I've highlighted the words most associated with the logic, and I think that's the best that I can do.

I don't know whether this or that constant is "inviolate," whatever that means. What I do know is what a variation in a "constant" would mean with respect to the rest of physics, and I have described that to the best of my ability.
 
Dancing David ,
Actually the implication of studies of Quasar light is just the opposite, J.Webb (Physical Review Letters, vol. 82 (1999) pp. 884-887) Et.Al. belive that the fine structure constant ( which IS Alpha) may have changed over time. I sited Magueijo The issue is contested vigorously , but again we will know more when we get new data from proposed satellites.

Epepke,
Hehe no, no Swahili. Your second paragraph, BTW to which I agree, has a more detailed description with caveats not addressed in your post I sited. Your claim that small changes in constants means major adjustments to our world view is also correct..That means that if certain "new" postulates pan out such as VSL or accelerating expansion are correct , then we must seek to modify current theory or accommodate observed behavior with new explanations. I think that even tho I do not declare the truth of these observations ( or thier implied outcome) they none the less exist wether they violate a theorem or two. The more enlightened view would be ..wait until we know and not be so declarative. After all the people working on these things are the brightest minds in the world and they say " We don't know".

BTW Inviolate,means pure, or unassailable
 
T'ai Chi,

In case you had forgotten (I know you've been busy - or "frantic", if you like - on some other threads):

If you mean Sheldrake's "The Variability of Fundamental Constants", could you please "pull" where Sheldrake points to his evidence that the constants actually fluctuate?

T'ai Chi said:
Many of them are not claiming (or calculating in some cases) that they change quickly at all. In fact, a lot of what I've read has them claiming that they are changing very very slowly, and detection is even a problem.
Click to expand...

Who is "them?" What "papers?"

You seem to have a growing number of questions hanging after you. May I suggest that you pull yourself together and at least try to answer them, instead of trying to divert attention from this fact?
 
LOL, Cantata.:book:

You NEVER change, do you? You can't cut a guy some slack for anything. And you always have to be talking about Facts, Facts, Facts. Answers, answers, answers.

Don't you ever kick back and relax? Awhile back, I really thought you were on the verge of a breakdown. Now, I see those symptoms returning.

Have you ever, in your life, thrown up your hands and said..."who cares", or "the hell with it"?
 
LOL, Cantata.:book:

You NEVER change, do you? You can't cut a guy some slack for anything. And you always have to be talking about Facts, Facts, Facts. Answers, answers, answers.

Don't you ever kick back and relax? Awhile back, I really thought you were on the verge of a breakdown. Now, I see those symptoms returning.

Have you ever, in your life, thrown up your hands and said..."who cares", or "the hell with it"?
 
LOL, Cantata.:book:

You NEVER change, do you? You can't cut a guy some slack for anything. And you always have to be talking about Facts, Facts, Facts. Answers, answers, answers.

Don't you ever kick back and relax? Awhile back, I really thought you were on the verge of a breakdown. Now, I see those symptoms returning.

Have you ever, in your life, thrown up your hands and said..."who cares", or "the hell with it"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom