Jump to content

Fundamental Constant May Vary By Location


par4dcourse
 Share

Recommended Posts

From Science Magazine, Fundamental Constant

 

A fundamental physical constant akin to the charge of the electron or the speed of light may depend on where in the universe you are, a team of astronomers reports. If true, that observation would overturn scientists' basic assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe

 

We're all here 'cause we're not all there..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reminded of a science fiction story I once heard about(but don't know the name of). The starship in the story had several different forms of drive propulsions, because in different parts of space, the kind of drive that would work would change depending on where in space the ship was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see this thread until now. Awesome news. Not even the most absolute "perfectly designed" constants are constant throughout the universe. So is the universe perfectly created differently at different locations? Different gods perhaps? :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Ouroboros.

 

If this result firms up and and is independently confirmed, then this will be a big win over the Christian apologists. The war won't be won, but it will still be a notable step forward. Knocking the Fine-Tuning Argument out of the game will go a long way toward showing that this 'evidence of design' they claim to see in nature is nothing more than a product of human psychology.

 

http://www.scientifi...ingful-patterns

 

http://www.michaelsh.../06/agenticity/

 

If the Fundamental Constants aren't so constrant after all, then the only option the Christians will have will to be deny it, just as they already deny whatever suits them. However, this brand of denial is a much weaker position to take than citing genuine science and then putting your own spin on it. If you're going to deny something from within science, yet rely upon it in your day-to-day life and use it's products, then you lay yourself w-i-d-e open to the joint (and entirely justified) accusations of cherry-picking and hypocrisy.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

On a not dissimilar note, I have a kind of wish list of scientific discoveries that I'd like to see happen in the near future.

Being an amateur astronomer, they naturally enough have to do with Cosmology and such like. wink.png

 

1.

Evidence that confirms the above, a varying of the so-called Fundamental Constants.

This would blow any of the Fine-Tuning Arguments out of the water.

 

2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

Confirming this would demonstrate that the so-called 'edge' of our universe is simply a visual horizon and not an actual boundary. This lack of a true, physical boundary knocks the props from any claim that out universe is an Isolated Thermodynamic System.

(Waves to Mr. B.I.G. smile.png )

The gravitational pull of 'something' beyond the edge would be shown to be reaching into the portion of the universe we can see (our observable universe) and causing galaxies to move toward it. Whatever it is, it could be shown to be real and to exist. If it's a sibling universe or a region of space-time that's radically different from ours, so much the better.

 

3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot

As the quality of our data on the Cosmic Microwave Background improves, it should become possible to discover if this 'cold spot' is just a statistical anomaly or the imprint of a parallel universe that was in contact with ours during the very earliest stages of cosmic inflation. If the latter, then this will join with Dark Flow as constituting hard evidence that our universe is not all that exists. It is simply one of many or perhaps one of an infinite ensemble of universes.

 

4.

If #3 is confirmed, this would strongly indicate that our universe arose from an eternally-existing Cosmic String Landscape... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_landscape ...which is a domain that constantly 'creates' new universes (like ours) simply as a function of it's existence. Therefore, no Creator is needed. We exist purely as an expression of an unguided, natural process. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

The Cosmic String Landscape would create so many universes (possibly an infinite quantity?) that all of these locations could be referred to as a Multiverse. Positive confirmations of Dark Flow and the CMB Cold Spot would strongly indicate that we live in a type 1 Multiverse. Evidence for a String Landscape would do the same for a Type 2 Multiverse. Finding evidence for a Type 3 Multiverse is another matter!

 

6.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Type 3 Multiverses are speculated to co-exist with ours, rather than to be physically removed by great distances, as are the Type 1's and 2's. Seeing as this is a 'wish' list, I'm going to speculate upon an idea that appeals to me.

This experiment... . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment ...seems to produce anomalous results

Photons sent thru two slits appear to interact with each other, producing the double-slit pattern.

350px-Single_slit_and_double_slit2.jpg

 

So when single photons are sent thru just one slit, they shouldn't interact with anything else, should they?

Yet, there's definitely a weak pattern of interaction (diffraction) in the upper image. This is so puzzling that Quantum scientists can't agree on a proper interpretation of these results and they generally fall into three camps - the Copenhagen Interpretation, the Path-Integral Formulation and the Relational Interpretation.

 

Now, I have my own, wildly speculative theory.

 

I speculate that the single photons are in fact interacting with other photons that have somehow 'leaked' thru the fabric of reality from an adjacent, co-existing universe. The scientists can measure all of the photons originating in our universe and try to account for all of the variables here. But what they can't do is measure and account for any stray photons 'leaking' across from another universe. These are the culprits that interact with the single photons fired by the scientists, thus producing a diffraction pattern where one shouldn't exist.

 

Pure speculation! I happily admit it. smile.png

 

However, there is one line of argument that might support my thinking.

If we do live an infinite ensemble of universes, then at any given time, there are an infinite number of scientists performing double slit experiments on an infinite number of 'parallel' Earths. Therefore, there will also be infinite number of double-slit experiments that are set up in exactly the same way as ours, here on our Earth. Identical, right down the molecular or atomic level.

 

If this is so, then quantum effects like this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation ...could be splitting pairs of virtual particles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle ) , causing one to stay in it's own universe and letting the other 'leak' across to ours. The distance travelled by the this 'leaker' wouldn't be great - it would be on the order of the Quantum scale ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_scale ) because in a Type 3 multiverse, individual universes co-exist with each other. They aren't separated by vast, cosmic distances of the space-time continuum.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In conclusion, here's a bit of fun, based on the notion of parallel universes having histories that diverge slightly or greatly from ours.

 

Sobel_North_America.gif

So where do you live?

 

Lesser or Greater Jefferson? North or South Vandalia? The Northern or Southern Confederacy?

El Norte or New Spain? Greater Russian Alaska, maybe?

 

Cheers,

 

BAA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope none of your wants actually happen.

 

Y not?

 

BAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope none of your wants actually happen.

 

Y not?

 

BAA

 

That is all nearly impossible to test, and means we will never figure this shit out before our sun blows up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope none of your wants actually happen.

 

Y not?

 

BAA

 

That is all nearly impossible to test, and means we will never figure this shit out before our sun blows up.

 

 

Well, I don't want to be picky here Noggy, but according to current theories, our Sun won't ever blow up.

 

Not as a Nova... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova nor as a Supernova... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova

The Sun would have to one of a pair of binary stars to become a Nova and it lacks the necessary mass to become a Supernova.

Sorry 'bout that! sad.png

 

This extract is from the Wiki page about our Sun, specifically, from the section on it's Life Cycle.

"The Sun does not have enough mass to explode as a supernova. Instead, in about 5 billion years, it will enter a red giant phase, its outer layers expanding as the hydrogen fuel in the core is consumed and the core contracts and heats up. Helium fusion will begin when the core temperature reaches around 100 million K and will produce carbon, entering the asymptotic giant branch phase"

 

Here's a neat diagram showing what astrophysicists think we can expect.

1000px-Solar_Life_Cycle.svg.png

 

Now, when it comes to testing and figuring out this 'shit', I really don't think that we'll have to wait too long.

Ten or fifteen years, maybe. That's why I put my fingers to the keyboard and typed out my wish list. I expect to see some of my 'wishes' come true before I die. smile.png

 

Here's why.

This satellite... http://en.wikipedia....nck_(spacecraft) ...will have completed it's mission and it's data will be ready for presentation by the end of next year. Using this data, we should be able to clinch the deal on #3, the CMB Cold Spot. Doing that won't be easy, so I estimate that we can add on another couple of years on, taking us to 2014/15.

 

If that happens, then this will be another confirmation of this scientists theories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Mersini-Houghton

So far, three of her predictions have been confirmed. If the CMB data from Planck bear out more of her predictions, then that'll strongly indicate the following;

* Our universe originated from String Landscape (see# 4)

* It's only one of many, perhaps infinitely many, other universes.

* Such an arrangement would be past and future eternal, requiring no Creator.

* Such an arrangement would qualify as a Type 2 Mutliverse (see #5)

* Such an arrangement would destroy the Fine-Tuning Argument for an Intelligent Creator.

 

Wishes #1 and #2 may well be answered when these guys...

 

http://en.wikipedia....Large_Telescope (possible completion by 2020)

http://en.wikipedia....Space_Telescope (possibly launched in 2015)

http://en.wikipedia....illimeter_Array (up and running by the end of next year)

http://en.wikipedia....Kilometre_Array (fully operational by 2024)

 

...come online and start to produce results.

 

So, while I'm happy to speculate about #6, I reckon 1 thru 5 are just over the horizon.

We're entering the Golden Age of Cosmology and we won't have to wait for the Sun to become a red giant to see some outstanding results!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha. I didn't mean that it would literally blow up. Though our sun should undergo a helium flash, which will effectively blow US up.

 

Gotcha! ;)

 

Yep. If we haven't skedaddled by then, it's Game Over!

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i heard of this therory when iread "new therories of everything" and i found it very interesting. also BAA i agree with you in that i think there are many universes however i have a peice of logic that refrains me from beliving in infinante universe.

 

say a alien was to teleport to our universe then if their were infinante universes then we would have infinante aliens transporting to the same spot. in fact we would have aliens transporting to every spot in the universe infinante times.

 

however i am a big proponent in the posibility of everything till proven otherwise so i am open to the idea and i think it is cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ bornagainathiest

 

The Multiverse and Many worlds interpretation is so cool. I wish them to be true so much since I have learned about them and Type 3 multiverse is my favorite! I love to imagine that everything that could have ever happened or can happen actually DID happen and DOES happen somewhere in the Multiverse!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Babylonian Dream
say a alien was to teleport to our universe then if their were infinante universes then we would have infinante aliens transporting to the same spot. in fact we would have aliens transporting to every spot in the universe infinante times.

But you´d also have an infinite number of those same spots. And an infinite number of those same spots that no aliens teleported to. The problem with an infinite amount of everything, is that our minds can´t fully grasp it. I'm inclined to view the entirety of existence as infinite, I'm no physicist, but I think that having a first cause would be just as paradoxical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There aren't an infinite number of universes.

 

That doesn't make sense.

 

You can't have an infinite amount of ANYTHING.

 

The idea of the multiverse is that there is a new universe everytime a quantum "decision" is made. So there are MANY universes and their number is expanding EXPONENTIALLY, but there is NOT infinite universes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Babylonian Dream

There aren't an infinite number of universes.

 

That doesn't make sense.

Why? It definitely doesn't make sense intuitively, I give you that.

 

You can't have an infinite amount of ANYTHING.

Not even space? The only problem with that is, what's beyond the edge of space? Can empty space, have an edge?

 

The idea of the multiverse is that there is a new universe everytime a quantum "decision" is made. So there are MANY universes and their number is expanding EXPONENTIALLY, but there is NOT infinite universes.

How does it say our universe came about? It expanded off another one? Then there has to either have been a first quantum decision, a first cause of sorts, or a lack thereof, requiring there to be infinite universes being created in that infinite time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of the multiverse is that there is a new universe everytime a quantum "decision" is made. So there are MANY universes and their number is expanding EXPONENTIALLY, but there is NOT infinite universes.

Isn't that just the Level IIIj classification? The Many-worlds interpretation in the aspect of quantum mechanics? What about Level I or II? How about Omniverse?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniverse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Tegmark.27s_classification

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Noggy!

 

There aren't an infinite number of universes.

 

That doesn't make sense.

 

You can't have an infinite amount of ANYTHING.

 

The idea of the multiverse is that there is a new universe everytime a quantum "decision" is made. So there are MANY universes and their number is expanding EXPONENTIALLY, but there is NOT infinite universes.

 

As Ouroboros says, you seem to be describing a Type III Multiverse.

One that's based on the idea of the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum "decisions". http://en.wikipedia...._interpretation

 

However, I was talking about the eternally-existing String Landscape-generated Multiverse. If the up and coming results confirm that kind of ensemble, then each 'new' universe that it creates doesn't need to be infinite in time or space. It is the Landscape itself that is infinite - having no beginning and no end. Each universe it creates does have a specific point of origin (It's own Big Bang) and each one doesn't have to be infinitely large. Simply being spatially very large (a billion times greater than the volume of our obserable universe, for instance) is fine.

 

So, statements like, "You can't have an infinite amount of anything" and "There has to be a first quantum decision" apply only within each individual universe. If each universe then goes on to produce it's own variants via Quantum branching (the Many Worlds theory), then that's fine too. We then raise the possible number of universes by a googleplex to the power of a googleplex or two! wink.png

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.