Inconstant Universe

[robotical]

Physics varies throughout the universe?

This is just astounding. If confirmed, it would be one of the most profound and important discoveries in physics history:

A team of astrophysicists based in Australia and England has uncovered evidence that the laws of physics are different in different parts of the universe.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 004112.htm

 

[darkmatter4brains]

Re: Physics varies throughout the universe?

This would be astounding, as you said! Sounds like they are in the very beginning stages of validating it though. It could easily go down the same path as "dark flow" did not too long ago - not enough data to draw any definite conclusions.

I wonder what this would mean for conservation of energy? The thing that gives us confidence that we can replicate an experiment at a later time and acheive the same result comes from time translation symmetry, which basically means the laws of physics don't change with time. But, from Noether's theorem, a symmetry implies a conserved quantity. The conserved quantity coming from time translation symmetry is energy.

But, since conservation of total energy of the Universe goes out the window in General Relativity anyhow, maybe it doesn't really matter.

EDIT: However, does this also imply that the fine structure constant would vary locally in time as well. If so, this would imply problems with energy conservation locally, and no mater how small a violation, that would be a big deal!

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: Physics varies throughout the universe?

Could dryson be correct after all???

 

[darkmatter4brains]

Re: Physics varies throughout the universe?

Could dryson be correct after all???

From what I understand of the article, I don't think so .... thank goodness! :lol:

well, at least not entirely

It sounds like over the observable Universe the change is so small, we might be able to easily operate under the approximation that the laws of physics are constant.

However, this is almost like another fine tune-up for life kind-of-thing. Even though the fine structure does vary, and may make life impossible in some parts of the Universe, in the observable part, the part accessible to us, it's all just fine for life.

Anyhow, this whole finding could still turn out to be nothing .. time will tell.

 

[matthewota]

Re: Physics varies throughout the universe?

Here is the link to the original paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3907

 

[tom_hobbes]

The implications are profound if this discovery is indeed confirmed. Any thoughts?

The controversial finding comes from an observation that one of the constants of nature appears to be different in different parts of the cosmos.

If correct, this result stands against Einstein's equivalence principle, which states that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. "This finding was a real surprise to everyone," says John Webb of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Webb is lead author on the new paper, which has been submitted to Physical Review Letters.

Even more surprising is the fact that the change in the constant appears to have an orientation, creating a "preferred direction", or axis, across the cosmos.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... verse.html

 

[MeteorWayne]

There's a thread on this in the physics forum here:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=26046

I may merge this one to avoid parallel discussions later, but will leave it here for now.

MW

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Re: Physics varies throughout the universe?

How interesting ! Just yesterday I ran across an old issue of Scientific American ...June 2005 to be precise. In it was an article "Inconstant Constants" by JD Barrow and the same JK Webb as in the OP's article. They were examining spectra from distant quasars to see if alpha, back in the early days of the universe, was different from it's present day value. Seems they thought alpha should have changed during various epochs and their data indicated this prediction was correct. They found a change of about 6 ppm in the last 6 to 12 billion years. Others investigators collected differing data and concluded otherwise. Webb and Barrow reported in the 2005 article that no spatial variations (<1 ppb) were seen. Sounds as if this line of work has progressed.

 

[tom_hobbes]

My bad!

Still, this thread has a catchier title...

 

[MeteorWayne]

NP, Tom, it fits in either place, I just don't think having two splitting the conversation is useful. It could wind up in either place with either title

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

From the article in the link:

"This finding was a real surprise to everyone,"

In fact this sentence surprises me more. Common sense tells us everything in the
universe was/is/will be changing over time, including the constants of science. The reason
everything appears constants to us is any actions in the universe is incredibly slow compared to our
sense of time.

Only interesting thing is they found this change of fine structure over space, not time. This may bring up
another theory which says 'our visible universe is a void' inside a much denser universe.

 

[ramparts]

Common sense tells us everything in the
universe was/is/will be changing over time, including the constants of science. The reason
everything appears constants to us is any actions in the universe is incredibly slow compared to our
sense of time.

That's an argument purely from common sense? Sounds like there are a lot of extra assumptions there to me. How can you use anything involved our own senses of time as a justification for something in physics? The Universe could give a crap how slow or fast our perception of time is.

The reason scientists are surprised at this finding - and let's not get ahead of ourselves, it's only been observed by one group so is still very much waiting to be confirmed - is because there's no a priori reason to expect the fine structure constant to vary, and if there's one thing we've learned from a few centuries of doing physics, it's that everything we observe in the Universe has an underlying reason. Since the theories suggest that alpha is constant, these same theories are extremely well-tested on other fronts, and there's no serious alternative theory which gives a good reason why it should vary, we don't expect it to vary. Pure and simple.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I have merged the thread in Physics with this one in SS&A to avoid duplicate discussions. It's kind of a tossup, but I think this is the better forum

Meteor Wayne

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

That's an argument purely from common sense? Sounds like there are a lot of extra assumptions there to me. How can you use anything involved our own senses of time as a justification for something in physics? The Universe could give a crap how slow or fast our perception of time is.

The reason scientists are surprised at this finding - and let's not get ahead of ourselves, it's only been observed by one group so is still very much waiting to be confirmed - is because there's no a priori reason to expect the fine structure constant to vary, and if there's one thing we've learned from a few centuries of doing physics, it's that everything we observe in the Universe has an underlying reason. Since the theories suggest that alpha is constant, these same theories are extremely well-tested on other fronts, and there's no serious alternative theory which gives a good reason why it should vary, we don't expect it to vary. Pure and simple.

Our observations or experimental findings runs at a pace much slower than what common sense can extract
using previous findings and logic. This all means they exist but have not been formulated by a scientific
theory yet.

We have been living through a very small window of time compared to universal time, within this window
many things seem constant to us. Ants lifespan is around 90 days. Ants born in Canada at the beginning of
summer will die with the knowledge that temperature is very high and almost constant on earth. Some of us died
knowing earth was flat, some of us will die knowing speed of light is 3x10[super]8[/super] m/sec.

If you believe (or understand the process, I dislike the word 'believe', so mental) in evolution, you should be ready for
various changes in nature, does not matter whether they are species or non-species.

I just remembered a thread 'End of Science', most scientists do not believe in this 'end', they should also not believe
all constants will remain constants no matter what. But I understand scientists dilemma also, they can not believe in something ahead of time.

 

[ramparts]

No, our lives only span a few tens of years, but our astronomical observations span nearly the entire history of the Universe. That's how these observations suggesting a varying fine structure constant were made in the first place.

Regardless, the fact that our experiments are done at a small slice of the Universe's history (ignoring the aforementioned astronomical observations) is a reason for uncertainty as to the constancy of the parameters of physics. You're taking it to an unwarranted extreme, suggesting that this means we should expect these parameters to vary.

Also, let's not mix sciences here willy-nilly. Believing in evolution says next to nothing about how you think fundamental physics should behave.

 

[StarRider1701]

It varies by only a tiny amount -- about one part in 100,000 -- over most of the observable universe, but it's possible that much larger variations could occur beyond our observable horizon," Mr King said.

About one part in 100,000. Observed over distances of millions of light years or more. I'm sorry but any number of errors, from equipment errors to observations errors can account for differences this small. For that matter, given that this difference is stronger in one direction and weaker in another when veiwing from Earth, then it seems more likely that they are somehow improperly compensating for Earth's own magnetic field and it's interaction with Solar radiation.

 

[robnissen]

Constants Not Constant?

There is a fascinating article on sdc today:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/f ... 00915.html

The one thing I would like to have seen in this article is a discussion of the value found. The fine structure constant is approx. 1/137, I wish the article would have stated the different apparent values found for this constant when looking from the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere. Any difference whatsover will have major impacts on cosmology, but if the differences are in the order of millionths of a percent, perhaps it is a measurement error. Differences in the range of percentages would be less likely to chalk up to measurement error.

But putting all that aside, and assuming this research holds up (it is yet to be peer-reviewed), what could possibly make constants be dependent on location in space?

 

[yevaud]

My bad!

Still, this thread has a catchier title...

At least you didn't title it, "Incontinent Universe."