Physics: Fine Structure Constant may not be Constant

PeterCH

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
18,371
Reaction score
3
Location
Cape Town
Fine Structure Constant may not be constant

Ye cannae change the laws of physics
Or can you?

Aug 31st 2010

RICHARD FEYNMAN, Nobel laureate and physicist extraordinaire, called it a “magic number” and its value “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics”. The number he was referring to, which goes by the symbol alpha and the rather more long-winded name of the fine-structure constant, is magic indeed. If it were a mere 4% bigger or smaller than it is, stars would not be able to sustain the nuclear reactions that synthesise carbon and oxygen. One consequence would be that squishy, carbon-based life would not exist.

Why alpha takes on the precise value it has, so delicately fine-tuned for life, is a deep scientific mystery. A new piece of astrophysical research may, however, have uncovered a crucial piece of the puzzle. In a paper just submitted to Physical Review Letters, a team led by John Webb and Julian King from the University of New South Wales in Australia present evidence that the fine-structure constant may not actually be constant after all. Rather, it seems to vary from place to place within the universe. If their results hold up to the scrutiny, and can be replicated, they will have profound implications—for they suggest that the universe stretches far beyond what telescopes can observe, and that the laws of physics vary within it. Instead of the whole universe being fine-tuned for life, then, humanity finds itself in a corner of space where, Goldilocks-like, the values of the fundamental constants happen to be just right for it.

Rest continues:
http://www.economist.com/node/16930866/print

And:

"The fine-structure constant, a coupling constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction, has been measure lately by scientist from University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia and has been found to change slightly in light sent from quasars in galaxies as far back as 12 billion years ago. Although the results look promising, caution is advised: 'This would be sensational if it were real, but I'm still not completely convinced that it's not simply systematic errors' in the data, comments cosmologist Max Tegmark of MIT. Craig Hogan of the University of Chicago and the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., acknowledges that 'it's a competent team and a thorough analysis.' But because the work has such profound implications for physics and requires such a high level of precision measurements, 'it needs more proof before we'll believe it.'"

Link:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/09/05/212252/Fine-Structure-Constant-Maybe-Not-So-Constant
 
you've had some interesting posts lately pete.
would be interesting to see if it can be corroborated and what the implications are.
 
you've had some interesting posts lately pete.
would be interesting to see if it can be corroborated and what the implications are.

I think it would imply that our knowledge is limited - in science one can never be certain of anything even though one can base practical measures on ones findings the idea that we have figured everything out even on a limited scale is unscientific.

Of course this could be an error too.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X