zaybu wrote:At first view, this article was not peer-reviewed. Secondly, I would like to know what it is that they measured? From the diagram, it seems they were measuring the redshifts but of what objects? And how do you go from redshifts, which are pruduced by an expanding universe, to declare that alpha varies from one corner of the universe to another? Thirdly, "It varies by only a tiny amount -- about one part in 100,000" How significant can that be?

I'm not sure what exactly you're unaware of but perhaps this wiki will clear it up? If not just ask away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

michael^3 wrote:What I have picked up from the science of physics these last couple of years is the following: the grand Theory of Everything is not arriving in our lifetimes.

Perhaps not but this finding isn't particularly anything new(well the findings etc. are but not the idea). Its been questioned if the fine-structure constant is even constant (through space and time) since before I was born .

In fact many 'Unifying theories of everything' advocate for a varying value of alpha...

zomgwtf wrote:

zaybu wrote:At first view, this article was not peer-reviewed. Secondly, I would like to know what it is that they measured? From the diagram, it seems they were measuring the redshifts but of what objects? And how do you go from redshifts, which are pruduced by an expanding universe, to declare that alpha varies from one corner of the universe to another? Thirdly, "It varies by only a tiny amount -- about one part in 100,000" How significant can that be?

I'm not sure what exactly you're unaware of but perhaps this wiki will clear it up? If not just ask away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

I know what the fine structure constant is. What's not clear from the article is how do you get from measuring the redshifts to measuring the the structure constant.

zaybu wrote:

zomgwtf wrote:

zaybu wrote:At first view, this article was not peer-reviewed. Secondly, I would like to know what it is that they measured? From the diagram, it seems they were measuring the redshifts but of what objects? And how do you go from redshifts, which are pruduced by an expanding universe, to declare that alpha varies from one corner of the universe to another? Thirdly, "It varies by only a tiny amount -- about one part in 100,000" How significant can that be?

I'm not sure what exactly you're unaware of but perhaps this wiki will clear it up? If not just ask away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

I know what the fine structure constant is. What's not clear from the article is how do you get from measuring the redshifts to measuring the the structure constant.

Ohhh ok sorry.
I'm pretty sure this is what's happening:

So what's happening is they are measuring the atomic spectra of the redshift at absorbtion after it passes through an intermediate... I believe a gas, with metal-ions. So this atomic spectra would be for a time period given by where the quasar is located. You would then compare these results to reference results and note any changes in the value of alpha.

That's how alpha is calculated anyways so it's not much different from doing it with a laser through hydrogen here is it?

Anyways I think that the title in this thread is misleading in fact it's so misleading I'd just say it's wrong. Instead what it should say is 'Universal Constant May Have Changed Over History of Universe'.

If we teleported to one of these distant quasars where a change in the value of alpha was being observed the value would most likely be the same if we had measured it hear. What these people are doing isn't measuing the present day value but the value over the course of the history of the universe. So I would say no, the Laws of Physcs definitely do not vary throughout the universe (in a spatial sense as the leading title suggests)

zomgwtf wrote:Anyways I think that the title in this thread is misleading in fact it's so misleading I'd just say it's wrong. Instead what it should say is 'Universal Constant May Have Changed Over History of Universe'.

If we teleported to one of these distant quasars where a change in the value of alpha was being observed the value would most likely be the same if we had measured it hear. What these people are doing isn't measuing the present day value but the value over the course of the history of the universe. So I would say no, the Laws of Physcs definitely do not vary throughout the universe (in a spatial sense as the leading title suggests)

I don't have issues with the thread title, though it may be misleading that requires interpretation. However, I do think your interpretation is probably valid, and similar to what I previously stated here.

zomgwtf wrote:

zaybu wrote:

zomgwtf wrote:
I'm not sure what exactly you're unaware of but perhaps this wiki will clear it up? If not just ask away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

I know what the fine structure constant is. What's not clear from the article is how do you get from measuring the redshifts to measuring the the structure constant.

Ohhh ok sorry.
I'm pretty sure this is what's happening:

So what's happening is they are measuring the atomic spectra of the redshift at absorbtion after it passes through an intermediate... I believe a gas, with metal-ions. So this atomic spectra would be for a time period given by where the quasar is located. You would then compare these results to reference results and note any changes in the value of alpha.

That's how alpha is calculated anyways so it's not much different from doing it with a laser through hydrogen here is it?

Thanks for the info

zomgwtf wrote:Anyways I think that the title in this thread is misleading in fact it's so misleading I'd just say it's wrong. Instead what it should say is 'Universal Constant May Have Changed Over History of Universe'.

If they were measuring the history of the constant then they would have found that the constant is bigger everywhere, or smaller everywhere than the local value. But according to the article, it was found to be smaller in one direction, but bigger in a different direction.

That is mind boggling.

I agree, it would be mind boggling. Maybe even Nobel prizeworthy, but I'm waiting for someone independent to reproduce it before I start getting a woody on.

twistor59 wrote:I agree, it would be mind boggling. Maybe even Nobel prizeworthy, but I'm waiting for someone independent to reproduce it before I start getting a woody on.

Apparently this group had found the anomaly back in 1998, but their sample was small, and no one took them seriously. This time they increased their sample from 40 to 300, and the anomaly is still there. Could it be a systemic error? Possibly, if not, this is earth-shattering news.

zaybu wrote:

twistor59 wrote:I agree, it would be mind boggling. Maybe even Nobel prizeworthy, but I'm waiting for someone independent to reproduce it before I start getting a woody on.

Apparently this group had found the anomaly back in 1998, but their sample was small, and no one took them seriously. This time they increased their sample from 40 to 300, and the anomaly is still there. Could it be a systemic error? Possibly, if not, this is earth-shattering news.

Or a systematic yet purely observational effect, rather than a systemic error. The number of ways it can go in any given theoretical construct does not include the law of the excluded middle.

my_wan wrote:

zaybu wrote:

twistor59 wrote:I agree, it would be mind boggling. Maybe even Nobel prizeworthy, but I'm waiting for someone independent to reproduce it before I start getting a woody on.

Apparently this group had found the anomaly back in 1998, but their sample was small, and no one took them seriously. This time they increased their sample from 40 to 300, and the anomaly is still there. Could it be a systemic error? Possibly, if not, this is earth-shattering news.

Or a systematic yet purely observational effect, rather than a systemic error. The number of ways it can go in any given theoretical construct does not include the law of the excluded middle.

I'm not sure if I understand your post.

Either there were no errors in collecting the data and there is variation in the FSC, or there were errors in collecting the data and there is no variation in the FSC. Could there be a third option?

zaybu wrote:

my_wan wrote:

zaybu wrote:

Apparently this group had found the anomaly back in 1998, but their sample was small, and no one took them seriously. This time they increased their sample from 40 to 300, and the anomaly is still there. Could it be a systemic error? Possibly, if not, this is earth-shattering news.

Or a systematic yet purely observational effect, rather than a systemic error. The number of ways it can go in any given theoretical construct does not include the law of the excluded middle.

I'm not sure if I understand your post.

Either there were no errors in collecting the data and there is variation in the FSC, or there were errors in collecting the data and there is no variation in the FSC. Could there be a third option?

Consider General Relativity where the speed of light varies with the variations in curvature. However, since any given observer is using a local metric to define distance and time, observationally the constancy of the speed of light is maintained. Yet these variations still lead to coordinate independent effects, like the perihelion of Mercury.

Now, if we haven't fully explored such observation effects, from various matter-energy fields, then simply because we measure the fine structure constant differently, as derived from the observations, doesn't mean the constant is different relative to those observers essentially local to the photon emission source apparently possessing a variant constant to us.

my_wan wrote:

zaybu wrote:

my_wan wrote:
Or a systematic yet purely observational effect, rather than a systemic error. The number of ways it can go in any given theoretical construct does not include the law of the excluded middle.

I'm not sure if I understand your post.

Either there were no errors in collecting the data and there is variation in the FSC, or there were errors in collecting the data and there is no variation in the FSC. Could there be a third option?

Consider General Relativity where the speed of light varies with the variations in curvature. However, since any given observer is using a local metric to define distance and time, observationally the constancy of the speed of light is maintained. Yet these variations still lead to coordinate independent effects, like the perihelion of Mercury.

Now, if we haven't fully explored such observation effects, from various matter-energy fields, then simply because we measure the fine structure constant differently, as derived from the observations, doesn't mean the constant is different relative to those observers essentially local to the photon emission source apparently possessing a variant constant to us.

The FSC is not dependent on the inertial frame of the observer, as far as I know. It arises in electromagnetism, which is itself a Lorentz invariant theory. The explanation as to why there are variations in the FSC would have to come from somewhere else. However, the article is not striding to give an explanation of this variation, but it does claim there are variations, and if this is true, it is quite outstanding.

zaybu wrote:The FSC is not dependent on the inertial frame of the observer, as far as I know. It arises in electromagnetism, which is itself a Lorentz invariant theory. The explanation as to why there are variations in the FSC would have to come from somewhere else. However, the article is not striding to give an explanation of this variation, but it does claim there are variations, and if this is true, it is quite outstanding.

You can define the FSC in terms of either the electric or magnetic constant, where the speed of light itself is the inverse of the square root of the electric times the magnetic constant, c = 1/(sqrt(u*e)). Thus the vacuum permeability and permittivity must covary in the same way space and time do under relativity. If they didn't, the speed of light wouldn't remain constant.

Given the inverse relation between space and time, any time dilation corresponds to a space dilation in another frame, such that the interval remains the same. General Relativity is a little different in the way this symmetry is expressed. Unlike Special Relativity, all observers agree that a clock on the ceiling is going faster than a clock on the floor. They just don't always agree how fast that is, or how big the difference is. Now, if your instruments are sensitive enough, and you fail to account for the gravitation variation, certain measurements of the emitter on the floor being measured at the ceiling will falsely indicate that the spacetime interval is variant, when it shouldn't be.

The only remaining question is, in what way can the observational effects be affected by the distance of the object. One of the big ones is the Hubble expansion. Can we assign the difference of frames as solely the result of the recessional velocity, or does the fact that in the interim between emission and detection the Universe expanded also contain a time dependent gravitational increase of depth, lead to clocks slow with expansion. What about dark energy and dark matter. If we are not properly accounting for the physics behind a constant spacetime interval, then that interval will not appear constant, even if the correct laws of physics says it should.

I'm not trying to make specific claims, though that is my rough guess based on what I do know. If I could prove it, that would be far more impressive. But for now we simply can't say with any significant certainty. There is big game at the foundations of physics, regardless of how that ends up working out.

my_wan wrote:

zaybu wrote:The FSC is not dependent on the inertial frame of the observer, as far as I know. It arises in electromagnetism, which is itself a Lorentz invariant theory. The explanation as to why there are variations in the FSC would have to come from somewhere else. However, the article is not striding to give an explanation of this variation, but it does claim there are variations, and if this is true, it is quite outstanding.

You can define the FSC in terms of either the electric or magnetic constant, where the speed of light itself is the inverse of the square root of the electric times the magnetic constant, c = 1/(sqrt(u*e)). Thus the vacuum permeability and permittivity must covary in the same way space and time do under relativity. If they didn't, the speed of light wouldn't remain constant.

Given the inverse relation between space and time, any time dilation corresponds to a space dilation in another frame, such that the interval remains the same. General Relativity is a little different in the way this symmetry is expressed. Unlike Special Relativity, all observers agree that a clock on the ceiling is going faster than a clock on the floor. They just don't always agree how fast that is, or how big the difference is. Now, if your instruments are sensitive enough, and you fail to account for the gravitation variation, certain measurements of the emitter on the floor being measured at the ceiling will falsely indicate that the spacetime interval is variant, when it shouldn't be.

The only remaining question is, in what way can the observational effects be affected by the distance of the object. One of the big ones is the Hubble expansion. Can we assign the difference of frames as solely the result of the recessional velocity, or does the fact that in the interim between emission and detection the Universe expanded also contain a time dependent gravitational increase of depth, lead to clocks slow with expansion. What about dark energy and dark matter. If we are not properly accounting for the physics behind a constant spacetime interval, then that interval will not appear constant, even if the correct laws of physics says it should.

I'm not trying to make specific claims, though that is my rough guess based on what I do know. If I could prove it, that would be far more impressive. But for now we simply can't say with any significant certainty. There is big game at the foundations of physics, regardless of how that ends up working out.

I believe that all of the effects of Relativity, both general and special, along with the Hubble expansion have been factored in these observations. The team of scientist is from the university of New South Wales, Australia. They have good universities there downunder, comparable to most universities in the US. I'm quite sure they are a competent bunch.

I've no doubt this has already been mentioned, but surely they are not just observing other parts of the Universe, but thosep arts at other times. so all they might be observing is a universal variance of this value over time.

twistor59 wrote:I agree, it would be mind boggling. Maybe even Nobel prizeworthy, but I'm waiting for someone independent to reproduce it before I start getting a woody on.

Yes.

During the chrstmas hols I plan to do some beer mat experimentsTM to settle this matter..

zaybu wrote:I believe that all of the effects of Relativity, both general and special, along with the Hubble expansion have been factored in these observations. The team of scientist is from the university of New South Wales, Australia. They have good universities there downunder, comparable to most universities in the US. I'm quite sure they are a competent bunch.

I'm not so sure. The Pioneer anomaly comes out awfully close to what you'd expect from an unpredicted Hubble expansion effect. "Dark Matter" is merely a named placeholder for an unknown X, the vacuum catastrophe has never really been dealt with, etc. I will not go off the deep end with the various issues with the standard model, as it is 'mostly' exquisitely verified, but some holes still come up. Of course there's the monster of GR and QM playing nice. To say that all effects of relativity in general are accounted for is a very broad brush to paint with.

Perhaps your right, but in a space of all possibilities even the extreme and perfectly valid empirical justification for the standard model is small. That's the nature of open ended systems, so I expect some cool surprises.

cursuswalker wrote:I've no doubt this has already been mentioned, but surely they are not just observing other parts of the Universe, but thosep arts at other times. so all they might be observing is a universal variance of this value over time.

As I understand it, they look out in different directions and see different answers, so there is some surprising directional variation. Presumably they've got sufficient data to eliminate just a time dependence of alpha i.e. when they look in a particular direction they have a mixture of near and far objects in that direction which have similar alpha behaviours.