Variable Constants

[Douglas Roberts-2]

And now for something completely different:

http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/09/05/212252/Fine-Structure-Constant-Maybe-Not-So-Constant

"The fine-structure constant, a coupling constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction, has been measured lately by scientists from the 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.'"

The implications, as one Slashdotter points out:

The fine structure constant is given as being equal to "e^2/hc", so if the FSC is not a constant then one (or more) of the other values must also be a variable. Take your pick between:

• e, The elementary charge [wikipedia.org]
• h, The reduced Planck constant [wikipedia.org]
• c, The speed of light in a vacuum [wikipedia.org]

If any of those constants turned out to in fact be variable, or even a "constant" which has varied over the lifetime of the universe, then the implications would be profound to say the least.

--Doug

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Douglas Roberts-2]

Good article from The Economist on this as well:  http://www.the-economist.com/node/16930866

On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

And now for something completely different:

http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/09/05/212252/Fine-Structure-Constant-Maybe-Not-So-Constant

"The fine-structure constant, a coupling constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction, has been measured lately by scientists from the 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.'"

The implications, as one Slashdotter points out:

The fine structure constant is given as being equal to "e^2/hc", so if the FSC is not a constant then one (or more) of the other values must also be a variable. Take your pick between:

• e, The elementary charge [wikipedia.org]
• h, The reduced Planck constant [wikipedia.org]
• c, The speed of light in a vacuum [wikipedia.org]

If any of those constants turned out to in fact be variable, or even a "constant" which has varied over the lifetime of the universe, then the implications would be profound to say the least.

--Doug

... [show rest of quote]

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org