The laws of physics may differ throughout the universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anselm33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anselm33

Guest
Although it is commonly accepted that physical laws and values of fundamental constants are the same throughout our universe, a recent finding, in which the fine-structure constant alpha has been found to vary by a small amount (1 part in 100,000) going from one end of the universe to another, i.e. surprisingly the variation seems to be unidirectional. Here’s the web link to the news article on this:
gizmag.com/laws-of-physics-may-vary-throughout-the-universe/16329/.
Comments? (I’d wonder myself about some sort of systematic experimental error, but the article doesn’t give details about the experiment.)
 
Anselm33 said:
Although it is commonly accepted that physical laws and values of fundamental constants are the same throughout our universe, a recent finding, in which the fine-structure constant alpha has been found to vary by a small amount (1 part in 100,000) going from one end of the universe to another, i.e. surprisingly the variation seems to be unidirectional. Here’s the web link to the news article on this:
gizmag.com/laws-of-physics-may-vary-throughout-the-universe/16329/.
Comments? (I’d wonder myself about some sort of systematic experimental error, but the article doesn’t give details about the experiment.)
Click to expand...
What would it mean to you if the laws of physics were not the same everywhere?
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
"]What would it mean to you if the laws of physics were not the same everywhere?/SIZE]
Click to expand...
One interpretation might be that the laws were set up to be locally favorable for human life on earth, but that might be a stretch.😉
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
What would it mean to you if the laws of physics were not the same everywhere?
Click to expand...
I would think to continue calling it a “law of physics” would be at best misleading; and at worst a violation of the law of noncontradiction.

Of course; presuming the experiments and evidence is both valid and reliable; and interpreted likewise.
 
Which is why we have so many “variable constants”!

[no joke]
 
JohnDamian said:
I would think to continue calling it a “law of physics” would be at best misleading; and at worst a violation of the law of noncontradiction.
Click to expand...
I think there’s a distinction here between a law, such as E=mc^2, the Einstein mass/energy equivalence relation derived from special relativity, and the universal constant c, the speed of light in vacuo (sp?) . The law might continue to hold, but the speed of light might vary from one region of the universe to another (violating generally held principles of physics and cosmology). Now one might note that the fine-structure constant alpha, although a fundamental constant, can be related to the following constants: c, the speed of light; h, Planck’s constant; epsilon zero, the permittivity of free space; e, the electron charge magnitude, so it might be one of those constants that’s varying.

Another point to reply to your original comment: there is an empiricist philosopher of science, Bas van Fraassen, who claims that there are no laws of science, just laws (or equations) constructed to mathematically summarize models that scientists use to understand the world around them–but these equations don’t represent reality.
Click to expand...
 
Anselm33 said:
Although it is commonly accepted that physical laws and values of fundamental constants are the same throughout our universe, a recent finding, in which the fine-structure constant alpha has been found to vary by a small amount (1 part in 100,000) going from one end of the universe to another, i.e. surprisingly the variation seems to be unidirectional. Here’s the web link to the news article on this:
gizmag.com/laws-of-physics-may-vary-throughout-the-universe/16329/.
Comments? (I’d wonder myself about some sort of systematic experimental error, but the article doesn’t give details about the experiment.)
Click to expand...
Here is another link:
economist.com/node/16941123

If this is true, it means that physicists don’t know as much about the universe as they thought they did (and even the things they think they know may not be correct) - hence guys like Hawking should not presume to “prove” statements such as “God is not needed for Creation of the multiverse/universe”. The only thing a real scientist can say is that he knows that he doesn’t know everything.
 
Anselm33 said:
(I’d wonder myself about some sort of systematic experimental error, but the article doesn’t give details about the experiment.)
Click to expand...
Interesting. Preliminary paper (not yet peer reviewed) below. It says the report on checks for systemics is being prepared, but see the Conclusions for some info.

“Qualitatively, our results suggest a violation of the Einstein Equivalence Principle, and could infer a very large or infinite universe, within which our `local’ Hubble volume represents a tiny fraction, with correspondingly small variations in the physical constants.”

You may understand the rest of the paper better than me!

arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.3907v1.pdf
 
inocente said:
Interesting. Preliminary paper (not yet peer reviewed) below. It says the report on checks for systemics is being prepared, but see the Conclusions for some info.

“Qualitatively, our results suggest a violation of the Einstein Equivalence Principle, and could infer a very large or infinite universe, within which our `local’ Hubble volume represents a tiny fraction, with correspondingly small variations in the physical constants.”

You may understand the rest of the paper better than me!

arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.3907v1.pdf
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting that link. I’ve looked at the paper, and what strikes me (wearing my statistics hat ;)) is the apparent heteroscedascity (sp?) of the linear regression plot versus polar angle. That is to say, the deviations from the straight line don’t seem to fall randomly on either side of the line but one side only, depending on northern or southern hemisphere… This speaks to me of some sort of systemic error, but it’s more intuition than quantitative reasoning.
 
Hmm. That seems possible. And if it is true, will you stop saying that; “Oh see, the laws are perfect for life!” 😛 (which they are not, even if they are not relative)
 
Tenofovir said:
Here is another link:
economist.com/node/16941123

If this is true, it means that physicists don’t know as much about the universe as they thought they did (and even the things they think they know may not be correct) - hence guys like Hawking should not presume to “prove” statements such as “God is not needed for Creation of the multiverse/universe”. The only thing a real scientist can say is that he knows that he doesn’t know everything.
Click to expand...
Yes, science is a continually self-correcting process, which is one of the reasons it is the best tool we have for understanding the world. I don’t know what non-constant laws of physics has to do with that more than any other new discovery, or what either has to do with Stephen Hawking.

But back on topic: if this were true, couldn’t it resolve the alleged problem of cosmological “fine-tuning?”
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Galilean Electrodynamics
Click to expand...
The publisher’s address, 141 Rhinecliff Street, Arlington, MA is a suburban house. - maps.google.es/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=es&geocode=&q=141+Rhinecliff+Street,+Arlington,+MA,+United+States&sll=42.415647,-71.184304&sspn=0.013434,0.019033&g=Rhinecliff+Street,+Arlington,+MA,+United+States&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=141+Rhinecliff+St,+Arlington,+Middlesex,+Massachusetts+02476,+Estados+Unidos&ll=42.412867,-71.185505&spn=0.006717,0.009516&t=h&z=17

… two of the three current members of the editorial board have no identified academic affiliations. Also, this publication is not indexed by the standard archive servers nor is it cataloged as a scientific journal at research institutions. The journal is known for publishing works that were not accepted by mainstream journals.

wikibin.org/articles/galilean-electrodynamics.html

I don’t think the forum would be well served by a detailed discussion of the ins and outs of one particular piece of crackpottery.

mentor on physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=274980

Probably won’t be subscribing any time soon. 🙂
 
While what your saying is true, it doesn’t make whats stated in the article untrue. Einstein was a clerk when he shocked the world. At that time, early Einstein was considered science fiction.

Anyway,

The Laws of Physics remain a constant. Until any one law can repetitively be proven to have a different effect under other circumstances, it remains what it is. a constant.

What I do see possible is a mathicmatical understanding which hasn’t dawned on us yet.

Reality is, what is. Yet we very well may not see “what is” right in front of us. How often this very idea is played out daily in society with the reality of Christ and GOD.

Matter of fact the understanding I’m alluding to, must exist. We have other life forms traveling in our Universe, apparently with a higher mathmatical understanding. Which works hand in hand with Physics and so on.

If by some chance we can convince non-believers in God, to aspire to the Truth. We will come to this greater understanding. Yet the path many blindly chose to travel, can only bring us to the next failed great civilization.
 
It is possible that some of our constants change, eg they might be dependent of other constants. For example g, the acceleration at earth’s surface, changes depending on where on earth you are, how high you are, and is constantly increasing due to the mass of earth slightly increasing as it absorbs asteroids. We don’t consider g a fundamental constant, of course, but some of the constants could depend on something else and science could handle that just fine, if that were the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top