Jump to content

Moneyalchemist

Members
  • Posts

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Moneyalchemist

  1. Just one example...

     

    Recent study forces scientists to rethink basic law of physics /

    'Fine structure constant' is indeed a constant -- right?

     

    By Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

     

    Legislators change laws from time to time, but Mother Nature's laws are eternal -- or so it has seemed.

     

    Now, though, scientists are debating clues that suggest the laws of physics change over time. University of California scientists are among the major players on both sides of the debate, which threatens to shake up our basic notions of reality.

     

    At stake is one of the fundamental values in physics: the arcane-sounding "fine structure constant," which measures how subatomic particles interact with light and with each other.

     

    Some astrophysicists have proposed that the value of the fine structure constant, a.k.a. "alpha," has changed subtly over billions of years. They base this proposal on their work -- using telescopes like the giant Keck telescope, which sits atop a dormant Hawaiian volcano -- analyzing light from interstellar gas and galaxy-gobbling super-furnaces called quasars on the outskirts of the universe.

     

    If they're right, then our theories of the cosmos might be due for an overhaul. One speculation is that alpha is changing over time because of now- unknown alternate dimensions. As these hidden dimensions change shape, they change the fine structure constant.

     

    But skeptics, citing observations that contradict the claim that alpha is changing, are plentiful -- and even the pro-change claimants are being cautious, partly because there's so much at risk. The notion that the laws of physics are eternal and unchanging is one of the ground-floor assumptions of everyday life -- when you drop a ball, for example, you expect it to fall, not to rise -- and no one wants to abandon that assumption unless they've got compelling reasons.

     

    "We are claiming something extraordinary here," acknowledged astrophysicist Michael Murphy of Cambridge University in England, one of the scientists who reported possible evidence of a change in the fine structure constant at a scientific conference earlier this year. "And the evidence, though strong, is not yet extraordinary enough."

    /see: http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-05-09/news/17373316_1_technique-alpha-change

     

    Very interesting - this is exactly what Rupert Sheldrake suggests - he says that laws of nature are not immutable and fixed but are rather like "habits" which evolve and change over time. This matches up exactly with what they say about the alpha constant (which then becomes a variable - but very slowly).

×
×
  • Create New...