How do we know the fundamental constants are constant? We don't.

[Helio]

Let's look at the definition of H2: "Hydrogen, H2, is an elemental gas with an atomic mass of 1.00794. This diatomic molecule is the lightest and most abundant element in the universe. It is also colorless[!]".

The photosphere of the Sun is abundant with hydrogen, and it emits a full spectrum of color.

As for diffraction, telescope companies enjoy stating that their mirrors are "diffraction limited", meaning they offer ideal reflection up to the diffraction limit.

 

[MikeCollinsJr]

The photosphere of the Sun is abundant with hydrogen, and it emits a full spectrum of color.

Good point. That's why I like the direction of the spikies: they reveal to us our "twin sun systems". Not that I'm leaving here anytime soon (hopefully!). As for Hydrogen-education, does anyone else care to teach earth science students about the basic and fundamental attributes of hydrogen's path daily in Earth's circulation system? I think the lesson is most clear using the only formalized magnetism system we have to offer.

 

[rod]

Thanks, Rod! Are you and your Orion XT10i located anywhere near Maine? I was able to get a short video of Jupiter and four of her moons recently with a Celestron and an iPad--fun!

No.

 

[rod]

Good point. That's why I like the direction of the spikies: they reveal to us our "twin sun systems". Not that I'm leaving here anytime soon (hopefully!). As for Hydrogen-education, does anyone else care to teach earth science students about the basic and fundamental attributes of hydrogen's path daily in Earth's circulation system? I think the lesson is most clear using the only formalized magnetism system we have to offer.

"That's why I like the direction of the spikies: they reveal to us our "twin sun systems"."

I use a glass white solar filter on my 90-mm refractor telescope and commonly observe the Sun with many sunspots in this solar cycle. https://www.spaceweather.com/

I do keep observations logged in my home database using MS ACESS. So far, I observe only one Sun That includes the August 2017 total solar eclipse that traveled across the USA.

 

[MikeCollinsJr]

No.

Near Earth?

 

[MikeCollinsJr]

Physicists have measured no changes in time or space for any of the fundamental constants of nature.

RE: today's thread about JWST images primarily, with a little bit of magnetism discussion, perhaps an as-poignant space.com article entree would be the how-to measure the ego of such blockbuster-hit designers, engineers, and governments people in a way that keeps programs, like JWST, from deterioration.

No one can assimilate a relationship between the Be-mirrors and H2, Neon, and imaging using the table of elements Standard alone; they need the magnetism values integrated, and they need to be taught how to express such.

Am I supposed to believe that $10B USD is not enough invested for such inclusion? That's ridiculous, if you ask me. Absolutely, sensationally, 100% ridiculous. Peter Sellers makes better pictures--and at opportunity cost.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

First, I suspect that there are still levels of "consituent particles" that are even smaller and more fundamental than the quarks, etc. of the "Standard Model" of quantum mechanics. So, it would not surprise me if we have some things to learn about how those 19 "funamental constants" are related, and perhaps can be reduced in number.

That said, I see no logical reason to think that there must be other universes with different values for whatever constants we think we need. There is no "law of nature" that says everything we don't understand in detail must be just one random representative of a range of all numerical values. That is just mathematical never-neverland thinking with no real basis.

But, if you really like to ponder things, realize that we also do not know for sure that these 19 "constants" are really constant across all space for all time. We are just observing a tiny fraction of space and time, and that is not randomly sampled in any way. We are stuck where we are, when we are, in what is very close to just a single point in space/time, and that is all we actually know.

So, when proponents of the BBT start introducing "fitting" parameters such as dark matter and dark energy and inflation, I just wonder what they would theorize if, instead of those new parameters, they simply allowed those 19 existing "constants" to vary in time and space in a manner that made the theory fit our observations.

I was reading an article a few days ago about theorists envisioning what an observer would see if the observer was going faster than the speed of light. The authors' conclusion was that space time would look like only on physical dimension and 3 dimensions of time. I have not fully comprehended why, or what the implications are. Take a look here to see what you think: https://phys.org/news/2022-12-dimensions-space-dimension-superluminal-spacetime.html .

 

[rod]

First, I suspect that there are still levels of "consituent particles" that are even smaller and more fundamental than the quarks, etc. of the "Standard Model" of quantum mechanics. So, it would not surprise me if we have some things to learn about how those 19 "funamental constants" are related, and perhaps can be reduced in number.

That said, I see no logical reason to think that there must be other universes with different values for whatever constants we think we need. There is no "law of nature" that says everything we don't understand in detail must be just one random representative of a range of all numerical values. That is just mathematical never-neverland thinking with no real basis.

But, if you really like to ponder things, realize that we also do not know for sure that these 19 "constants" are really constant across all space for all time. We are just observing a tiny fraction of space and time, and that is not randomly sampled in any way. We are stuck where we are, when we are, in what is very close to just a single point in space/time, and that is all we actually know.

So, when proponents of the BBT start introducing "fitting" parameters such as dark matter and dark energy and inflation, I just wonder what they would theorize if, instead of those new parameters, they simply allowed those 19 existing "constants" to vary in time and space in a manner that made the theory fit our observations.

I was reading an article a few days ago about theorists envisioning what an observer would see if the observer was going faster than the speed of light. The authors' conclusion was that space time would look like only on physical dimension and 3 dimensions of time. I have not fully comprehended why, or what the implications are. Take a look here to see what you think: https://phys.org/news/2022-12-dimensions-space-dimension-superluminal-spacetime.html .

"How would our world be viewed by observers moving faster than light in a vacuum?"

Cool

 

[Helio]

That said, I see no logical reason to think that there must be other universes with different values for whatever constants w There is no "law of nature" that says everything we don't understand in detail must be just one random representative of a range of all numerical values. That is just mathematical never-neverland thinking with no real basis.

It’s not a law but a principle — the Copernican Principle. Throw in the Anthropic principle to push it a bit further.

It has some utility but it fails more often than one might expect. Owen Gingerich does a nice job pointing this out.

I also think Copernicus, a church canon, would disagree with it as well.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Helio, I don't see the Copernican Principle as any direct support for multiple universes with different constants. Maybe as an extreme extention of the thought process, but not really actually part of that "principle". All the Copernical Principle really says is that we should not assume that our place in this universe has any special properties compared to other places in this universe. That makes some sense, and still seems compatible with the BBT if we assume that the differences we see with respect to distance (but not direction) are all due to a univerrse that is everywhere changing with time, coupled with the travel time of the speed of light giving us observations for different times at different distances.

It is a huge, and, in my opinion, entirely unsupported speculation that the same "we are somewhere in the range of some distribution" type thinking to assume that there is a distribution of entire universes with "constants" that span the whole range of numbers (i.e., infinity to the 19th power of universes). (Yes, that is still "just" infinity.)

 

[Helio]

Helio, I don't see the Copernican Principle as any direct support for multiple universes with different constants. Maybe as an extreme extention of the thought process, but not really actually part of that "principle". All the Copernical Principle really says is that we should not assume that our place in this universe has any special properties compared to other places in this universe.

Agreed. The Cop principle can be stated as an anti-special guideline viewpoint. It is no surprise that it is used to refer to our universe as not being special in the sense that we are just one in zillions. Thus, life-favoring universes are highly likely.

But this, IMO, is too much like the dumb ham sandwich joke — We can make a nice ham sandwich if only we had some ham and bread.

It is a huge, and, in my opinion, entirely unsupported speculation that the same "we are somewhere in the range of some distribution" type thinking to assume that there is a distribution of entire universes with "constants" that span the whole range of numbers (i.e., infinity to the 19th power of universes). (Yes, that is still "just" infinity.)

Enter the mathematics to upgrade the possibility for the Multiverse. This has produced a set (10^600) of other universe configurations. This adds a level of elegance that is always attractive for any want-to-be theory.

But a theory must make predictions that can be observed. One model claims that six tests come from the model. But there is no mention how many other explanations might explain the results. Likely none, IMO.

The Titus-Bode Law is one example of math that snuck past physicists to become a law.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I am not going to jump down that rabbit hole into math that does not have any apparent attachment to reality.

But, I have to wonder: What is their reason for limiting the potentially infinte number of universes to "only" 10^600? Did they just get tired? Or, did they actually have some criterion for ruling out the rest of the numbers for those 19 parameters, each of which could presumably have an infinite number of discrete values, once you assume that they are not fixed numbers when you change to a different universe?

Sometime "mathemeticians" seem to hide behind the fact that their mathematical approach is so convoluted and so poorly explained that nobody is going to check their math. So, my approach it to question their assumptions before getting led into the mathematical maze. The math itself is irrelevant if the assumptions don't make sense.

 

[Helio]

Apparently, by overlaying the particle-wave functions of quantum physics onto a “landscape” of string theory, produces the number of possible outcomes. That’s my limited take, and this rabbit hole goes deeper, of course. I’m unlikely to give any explanation the justice it deserves.