More on the Fine Structure Constant 196
Bonker writes "Neat news from the Beeb. It turns out that data collected from observation of quasars indicates that the fine structure constant of the universe, aka 'Alpha', may have changed since the universe began. It may have been very slightly smaller than it is right now. The article hints that other constants we're familiar with, such as high, holy 'c', may also vary over time. Of course values can't have changed dramatically, because that would mean that low-weight atoms such as carbon would be unstable, and without carbon, there wouldn't be anyone around to measure the fine structure constant anyway." We ran a story about this last year. It looks like the team has continued to check their work for errors and hasn't found any yet.
Pi? (Score:1)
After that e, sqrt(2), 1 and 0.
For those of you who do not know humour: %$#%$
Re:Pi? (Score:3, Interesting)
Alternately, if we're shrinking on a hyperbolic space (ie staying the same size on an ever growing space), then pi should be getting smaller.
Actually, unlike 0, 1, and e, pi is not "a fundemental constant", but a convenient artefact that allows circles and spheres to be expressed. For example, one can use any number "k", and express pi in terms of "k". The definition of k would be different, but that's ok.
For example, if k were pi/4, we would say that the circumference of the circle is 8kr, and its area 4kr^2. For diameters, circ = 4kd, and area = kd^2. This make the circumference and area k times that of the circumscribing square.
Also, I have played with a set of mathematics, that makes the surface of the sphere 8 pi r^2, with pi=3.14159265359 &c. This has an effect on the "rationalisation" in physics, where 4pi gets replaced by 8pi.
Mathematics has a lot of preconcieved notions in it.
Re:Pi? (Score:1)
Re:Pi? (Score:2)
Actually, in the history of evaluating pi, there are some people who evaluated the value 6.2831852 to large number of places, from which we can deduce their value of 3.14159...
All that is required of pi is to have the circumference of the circle expressiable as a product or quotient with just one irrational. Whether you call 3.14159265359 n/k or nk, and the value of n are pretty much free variables. Ergo, pi is not a fundemental constant.
Unlike pi, the values e, 0, and 1 would be the same for all cultures. The number e has only one meaning: e^(1/x) ~> 1+1/x as x gets large.
Re:Pi? (Score:2)
Does not refute my arguement. You see, there is a number 3:16E8 E3... (base 120) = 3.14159265359 (base 10), but you have not established why we sould us it in preference tp something else, like 6.28318530718, or 12.566373144 or whatever.
Just because you can throw excellent links about 3.14159265359 at me, it does not mean that every culture, or separate mathematical tradition is going to write the circumference of the circle as 2k of the radius.
I've seen good cases for using 6.28318530718 as the fundemental constant for the circle.
Therefore "pi" is not a fundemental constant, but just a convenient expression for the circle and circular things.
On the other hand, "e" will always evolve from logarithms. "e" was not set before-hand, like pi was. The definition of pi is simply the circumferance divided by the diameter of a circle. Every other expression, formula and so forth relate to this definition.
But ... there are other properties of the circle that can set a ratio, such as the circumference divided by the radius. Given that the radius is the correct mathematical expression of the circle (all formulae relate to the radius), then the constant of 6.28... is "more correct".
The values of 0, 1, and e are determined from the outcomes of pre-existing conditions. 1 from a pre-counting era, and 0 as a symbol for an empty item [I recognise something like eight or nine idioms for "0", and several different symbols].
For example, remember that "0" is the "empty column". The "column" could be an empty tray by itself, or one in the middle of others. For example, if your purse is empty, it's a different story to if you have a $1 and a 5c peice in it (which involves a different kind of 0, $1.05, and this is a different kind of zero to the one in "3 hours [0 min] 22 sec". There's also the "dash zero", filling a column with a dash to indicate that it's empty.
My studies of Egyptian mathematics seem to indicate that the values pi/4 may have been the form used.
Pi as 3.1415926... seems to be established when the circle was described in terms of its diameter. A circular inch, for example is an area of a circle of one inch diameter.
The fine structure constant, and its related fine structure hundred [the latter is my name for 137.036...] is something that evolves from physics, and is not "set before hand".
Re:Pi? (Score:2)
If however you want to make Pi a measurement ratio, then you can never calculate it to arbitrary precision - you can only measure it. And general relativity already tells you that in our universe even if you had perfect measurement tools, you will measure a different value for Pi because of space being bent by mass.
Does that mean the value of Pi for the idealized circle is wrong? No.
--jeff++
Re:Pi? (Score:2)
The issue here is that the named constant is 3.1415926..., and not 6.2831853 or 0.785398....
You can any of take these to arbitary precision.
Re:Pi? (Score:2)
Yes, yes, but pi is a constant on a Euclidian plane, and therefore always has, is, and will be the same value. Whether or not the universe is Euclidian or not is debatable.
But are you talking about the phenominal world or the nouminal world? At the presision our senses operate, the outside world appears Euclidian, so our internal representation of the world, the nouminal world, all that we experience, IS Euclidian, and pi is always the same. But the world is, in fact, not Euclidian at all. Everything 'out there' operates according to a set of rules that operates very much like the set of rules 'in here', but not quite.
If we someday build a true artificial intelligence, it would be interesting to build it such that its internal view of the world was based not on our own Euclidian, newtonian minds, but instead on what we know to be a representation closer to actual external reality. What advances a research assistant that truely groked QM could bust out. Probably have a wicked curve ball too.
Re:Pi? (Score:2)
Re:Pi? (Score:2)
Re:Pi? (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmm. Maybe in a dozen billion years or so, my slashdot Karma may be worth more also.
New Scientist also covered that story last week. (Score:1)
From what I remember the change in the alpha value, if there is one, would only be by about a billionth of what it is today.
Re:New Scientist also covered that story last week (Score:2)
Re:New Scientist also covered that story last week (Score:1)
Re:New Scientist also covered that story last week (Score:1)
No... alpha changed and the article ceased to exist
I want independant analysis and data. (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I won't find the evidence convincing untill another group takes some their own data and gets similar results. Given that many astronomers have similar sentiments, it seems that giving VLT time to the same group seems not the best use of VLT time.
Of course, if no other astronomers find the likelyhood of the discovery worth the effort of making the observations, then it may be difficult to get independant confirmation. Given that it would be a really big deal if true, I think that says a lot about how seriously the astronomical community takes these claims.
Re:I want independant analysis and data. (Score:3, Informative)
They're also gearing up to try some obs w/ the iodine cell in at Keck to really firm up the wavelength solutions.
VLT data would be best though, I agree.
Re:I want independant analysis and data. (Score:1)
Re:I want independant analysis and data. (Score:2)
Here's a constant astrophysics are free to use: (Score:3, Funny)
Epsilon (Score:2)
Raise sigma to the power of the money spent on those dates (which, perhaps counter-intuitively, appears to be inversely related to sigma itself), and we have a value that can be substituted for zero for most practical purposes, while remaining safe for division, though it may strain the limits of floating-point precision.
--
(*1) For any given meaning of "successful". I'll leave it to you sick monkeys to guess whether I mean what you think I mean.
(*2) For reasons that should be obvious.
No hints about c (Score:5, Interesting)
The article actually doesn't really hint that 'c' is changing, which is good, because it's not clear what would be meant by that. The article says that several physicists have previously wondered if it could change. It then goes on to quote a modern physicist as saying that they were wrong.
I think c is best thought of as a man made constant. Just as I might say that there are 2.54 centimetres per inch, I can say that there are ~3*10^8 metres per second. Neither of these really contains any information about the universe outside of our perception of it. It is simply a statement of how one one system of measurement compares to another. 2.54 centimetres per second evaluates to unity (the number 1, with no units) if you actually evaluate it. Likewise, physicists commonly use unity as the speed of light, because in a very meaningful way, it is.
If I suddenly magically increased c by 10%, that would be indisinguishable from stretching the universe by 10% in every spacial direction. Consider that the speed of light it essentially unity, and that expressing it otherwise is really more a statement of our systems of measurement that we use than of physical reality. This makes it seem silly to say that I have magically increased c by 10% and makes it seem more reasonable to say that I have stretched the universe by 10% in every direction.
Re:No hints about c (Score:2)
Re:No hints about c (Score:2)
Before, we could measure lenghts more accurately than velocities, and so we defined c in terms of meters per second.
But now, since we can measure velocity with more precision and accuracy than distance, a meter is now defined in terms of the length of a second and c.
Now:
The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. (think atomic clock)
The speed of light in a vacuum is defined to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second.
The "length" of a meter then is a derived value!
So there are consequences of a changing c, since a different value of c will change the amount of energy needed to accelerate a mass, and will affect the structure of the universe....but I'm not sure how they would go about figuring that out.
Re:No hints about c (Score:2, Insightful)
c is the speed at which electromagnetic waves propagate. calling it the speed of light is somewhat of a misnomer; it might be better to say that light moves at the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves, since it is, after all, an electromagnetic wave. Furthermore, it turns out that the wave equation implies that c = 1 / square_root(e_naught * mu_naught), where e_naught is the permittivity of free space (ratio of charge to electric flux in vacuum) and mu_naught is the permeability of free space (ratio of current to magnetic flux in vacuum). These two are experimental constants which the speed of light happens to depend on (although now the speed of light is taken to be a fundamental definition). Therefore, an increase the speed of light by 10% would imply an increase in either or both of the fundamental constants, which may have drastic effects, comparatable to G (the universal gravitational constant) being 10% greater.
Re:No hints about c (Score:2, Informative)
(1) The quadrant of the Earth.
(2) The length of a particular metal bar.
(3) The wavelength of a particular atomic spectral line.
(4) The speed of light and the frequency of an atomic clock.
Each change improved the reproducibility of the best length measurements, given the technology at the time the change was made.
The observations that suggest alpha varies are based on comparing wavelengths of light from different atomic oscillations, potential distance standards similar to (3) above. They appear to vary relative to each other. If you want to attribute this to varying c, which one is the reference yardstick?
For our present technology the most reproducible clocks and yardsticks are atomic oscillations. If these lack relative constancy and you choose the frequency of one as your time standard and the wavelength of another as your length standard, you will apparently observe a changing value of c. However, the direction and magnitude of the change will depend on which pair you choose. If we had really independent distance and time standards (and it was clear which was which) it would make sense to consider c an experimental quantity. Since we don't we have just chosen one standard (a particular oscillation of cesium), and c is a defined constant.
Similarly, the electromagnetic quantities "epsilon nought" and "mu nought" were once experimental quantities, but are now by definition exactly {10^7/(4 Pi c^2)} and {4 10^-7 Pi} respectively. This means that the coulomb is no longer defined electrochemically: it is a derived unit, not a fundamental one in the SI system.
Re:No hints about c (Score:1)
Think of c as an aspect ratio. The ratios of the space dimensions are (usually) 1, which is like a computer screen made of perfectly square pixels layed out evenly; if you rotate an image on that screen, it doesn't change at all. If the ratio is not 1, then rotating the image makes a difference, and the distortion (circles becomes ellipses, faces get squished, etc.) is dependent upon the ratio.
Where is this 'distortion' then, in space-time? It is all the weird things that happen when objects approach the speed of light. Moving between reference frames is like rotating the screen, and thus the value of c influences these behaviors. So what? Even if you're not a space traveler, things like the color of gold are dependent on this number. Shift 'c' enough, and it's lead that's pretty and gold dull.
The units we use may be convenient and flexible, but space and time are not arbitrary, even ignoring relativity. For example, you could measure the speed of light in terms of (diameters of uranium nuclei) per (period of light emitted by first ionization of hydrogen) or any such, and it should be clear that changing this velocity would require rewiring the universe.
-AlphaGeek
Re:No hints about c (Score:1)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110060 [arxiv.org]
It's a discussion of how many "dimensionful" fundamental constants there really are. I went to a seminar given by Mike Duff here in Ann Arbor and he had me pretty well convinced that the only numbers that matter are things like alpha, and if you were to change c, h, etc together in ways which left alpha unchanged you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Re:No hints about c (Score:2)
Oh well, that's OK then ;-)
Um. Actually, you would effectively shrink the universe by 10%.
Seriously though- that would be very, very bad. Consider the moon in its orbit. It's sitting up there, and suddenly it's 10% closer. It's mass is the same and the mass of the earth is the same, but suddenly its 10% closer, and going 10% faster as well.
Basically, that would change its orbit, really noticeably, but that doesn't matter.
The earth would be a different distance from the Sun- that would have devastating effect on the biosphere. It would get really hot. But that doesn't matter either.
Far worse- all of the nuclear bonds holding the earth together would suddenly be 10% too short. The earth has been shrunk by 10%, and it doesn't like that. The earth would explode back out to its original size, overshoot, and finally relax to its original size; liberating immense energy. Everything on the earth would disintegrate. Without doing the maths a quadrillion on the Richter scale sounds about right. (Note that the Richter scale is a logarithmic scale.) That would matter.
Re:No hints about c (Score:5, Interesting)
But since a yardstick is more tangible than the speed of light, people would prefer to say that the speed of light changed, and not the yardstick.
It may be more tangible, but it isn't "more constant." The length of a yardstick is determined by the number of atoms on a typical line running from one end to the other times the average distance between their centers along this line. The number of atoms won't change if you change c, but the distance between them (which is determined by the interaction between charges, which is mediated by photons, which move at c) will--it will change in exactly the way to make you think that c hasn't changed.
As the original poster was pointing out, c isn't so much a constant as a tautology.
-- MarkusQ
Re:No hints about c (Score:3, Informative)
As philosophically nice as that would be, this just isn't true. The spacing of atoms and molecules in bulk matter is mediated by electromagnetic forces, but is determined by the solution to the local Schrodinger equation in a periodic potential, and it is not at all straightforward to evaluate this spacing given only fundamental constants and the composition of the material. In particular, the spacing in question definitely does not vary linearly with c.
To take an example from a previous comment, suppose you wanted to express c in terms of the radius of a U-238 nucleus and a Lymann-alpha photon period. Using only first-order effects, the energy of the Ly-alpha photon varies as 1/c. Since h is experimentally determined, we'll suppose it doesn't change (you'd notice immediately if it did), in which case the Ly-alpha period is linear in c.
For the nuclear radius the matter is more complex. For the droplet model it becomes a matter of QCD to determine the effective nucleon radius. If we use the less realistic but easier point-particle non-local-potential model, it depends primarily on the mass of the pion: the volume depends (to rough first order) on c^2, so the radius goes as c^(2/3).
Finally, the measured value of c goes as length over time, so this measurement varies as c^(2/3-1) = c^(-1/3). So you really can't claim that every possible measurement of the value of c is invariant under changes in c, because this one clearly isn't.
Re:No hints about c (Score:2)
My specific comment was aimed at bulk matter, in which nuclear radius doesn't matter (at least, for a few orders of magnitude). The poster to whom I was responding claimed that his "tangible" yard stick would let him know if c changed; my point was that his reasoning wasn't as sound as he might think since the length of his (physical) yardstick depended on the speed of light.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. As for your wavelength vs. nuclear radius thought example, I don't know enough about the inner workings of quark stew to be sure that there isn't some hidden dependence on c that would make it all work out. The assumption of c == 1 is so deep (and most physicists, at least by mathematical standards, so sloppy) that I would not bet one way or the other.
back to the drawing board (Score:3, Funny)
Re:back to the drawing board (Score:1)
Re:back to the drawing board (Score:2)
Good science reporting? (Score:3, Interesting)
"If this is correct, it will radically change our view of the Universe. We have to be cautious but it could be revolutionary. We have seen something in our data - but is it what we think?"
I like it when scientists talk about their theories in this manner. On one hand you have a whole body of researchers, scientists, and journals who are so afraid to rock the status quo that they refuse to research (or publish) controversial information. On the other, you have scientists and/or crackpots who are so paranoid and skittish towards working within the peer reveiw system [bbc.co.uk] that we'll probably never gain access to their research, some of which may be quite important and revolutionary.
(I quit my physics major a year in and switched to CS. At what point do 'paranoia' and 'ego-building' become required courses?)
I think this is a nice middle ground. These guys have announced a neat finding, with the caveat that they are still in a thourough 'error-checking' mode and are looking for problems with their own research and are implicitly inviting others to do the same.
Re:Good science reporting? (Score:2)
Speaking of Change (Score:1, Offtopic)
Can't spell
Can't conjugate
Can't proofread
and now...
Can't keep consistency.
Re:Speaking of Change (Score:2)
Re:Speaking of Change (Score:1)
C++ Uhg.. sorry, I had to. (Score:1)
I never claimed to be a physics expert, just an expert in physics
Falsification of the Combinatorial Hierarchy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh well... (Score:1, Flamebait)
If 'C' is possible flawed.... (Score:1)
-marc
some background on 'alpha' (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, it determines the "strengh" of the electromagnetic force. It is important because
a) it has no units (it's just a number, approximately 1/137)
b) it is easy to measure to a great degree of accuracy
c) it can be measured using a variety of different experiments
d) many fundamental phyiscal constants (such as c - the speed of light in a vacuum, e - the charge of an electron, and h - the Planck constant.
So a change in alpha would mean a change in one of the fundamental constants of physics.
For more information, you can read NIST's wonderful description [nist.gov].
varying c (Score:1)
in your favourite format.
It's my fault (Score:2)
"You dont ask how some things are done, you simply do them." - Q
Re:It's my fault (Score:2)
Carbon may not have been stable (Score:2)
Who is to say that carbon has always been stable... maybe one of the more unstable elements today was the stable element at the time and has become unstable as a result of the change in the constant value.
Re:Carbon may not have been stable (Score:1)
I very much doubt that the stability of carbon has varied much in the lifetime of the universe.
Re:Carbon may not have been stable (Score:2)
Perhaps in say 100 billion years from now, carbon *will* become unstable and carbon-based life-forms will evaporate (assuming no gradule evolutionary path to some other compounds). The universe may become a tough or boring place to survive down the road: less energy to harnass, carbon growing useless, no pretty pictures from a Hubble-like scope because everything is dispersing and cooling, no starry nights to jump-start your date's libido.
Eat, Drink, and Be Merry, for tommorrow is entropy.
How The Universe Really Works (Score:2, Interesting)
About two years ago, Slashdot ran a story talking about the theoretical upper limit of computer speed (sorry, couldn't find a link). Basically, the idea was to convert the mass of your computer to energy to allow ALL of it to work for you. This energy, in the form of light, will create intereference patterns - just like you did with the two slits in 5th grade science - and that's how the computer (which now resembles a small star) does it's computing kinda thing (gross oversimplification of what the article said, but that's the gist). Now if you compress enough energy into a singularity, you have pretty much (and the "pretty much" is important) infinite computing power (due to time dialation and so on).
Well, it just so happens that God has one of these things on his desk. Our universe is a program running inside this uber-computer that resembles a black hole.
Earlier I said the processing power of this computer would be "pretty much" infinite. Well - it isn't big enough to handle every particle in the universe simultaneously. Some of the universe is "swapped out". Ever sit down at the computer to read slashdot, and whammo, four hours have gone by? Wonder what happened to the time? You were swapped out, that's what.
There also appears to be problems with the branch prediction unit of this computer. Deja vu? branch prediction made an error, and the queue had to be recalculated. Ever reached in your pocket and pulled out a $5 bill you didn't know you had? bad branch prediction.
If a tree falls in the woods, and no one was there to witness, does it make a sound? No. It didn't even fall. Actually, it wasn't even there. Years later, when a witness comes upon the site, all the events since the last witness came by are quickly approximated and the end results are what the new witness sees. What constitutes a witness? People? squirrels? I dunno. Doesn't matter, really.
Can't remember if you left the oven on? Well, both options are possible, and both have been approximated. The appropriate one will be chosen when someone sees the end result (either your house burns down, or it doesn't).
Lots of strange events can be explained with this model of the universe:
Reincarnation/past lives/Ghosts? Bad garbage collection, or the Divine Coder forgot to unallocate memory.
ESP? Packet snooping.
Why can't objects with mass go faster than the speed of light? Think of everything like an object in C++. If you have a "mass" property, your object is too big to fit through the "bus" in one "fetch cycle", so your "position" property can't be updated as fast as say...a photon, which fits through the bus in one cycle.
Why is the rules of Quantum Mechanics so strange/Planck's Constant? In the world of computers we know, what's smaller than a bit? Looking at things on that small a scale, we're seeing the individual bits flip from 1 to 0 in God's workstation. Of course it will look odd, and it won't mean much when compared to the world as we perceive it. Combine that with the fact that most of the universe is approximated, and you end up with really strange things happening on that small a scale.
Why are some people luckier than others? Not all people call the same random number generator, or maybe some people can call it with a certain "seed value".
Bermuda triangle? think of something like a bad sector on a disk, or a faulty RAM stick - of course, the computer this runs on doesn't use disks or RAM sticks, but it's still a decent analogy.
Jesus? You play Quake/Unreal/The Sims, don't you? It just so happens that God's version of "The Sims" is a hell of a lot better than yours.
Don't think of this as something akin to the movie "The Matrix" - because these rules we live by in this universe can't be broken. There's no dodging bullets. there's no agents... We were created parts of this simulation, and are ourselves simulated and no more or less real than the world we live in - and there's no way to get out of this simulation.
However, maybe there is a way to use the rules to our advantage? But to do that, you need to know the real rules behind the physics we see. We'd need to know what's happening to those individual bits in the processor. If we can affect those often enough, maybe we could effectively beat the rules...?
More important is this question: Were we created on purpose, or is this entire universe of ours that exists inside God's Workstation meant to be something else entirely? Maybe we were supposed to model plasma dynamics, and the system taking on intelligence was a by-product of the genetic algorithm that was used? Or maybe we're something like an AI experiment?
Physics rules (Score:2)
Correct me if my interpretation is wrong here... (Score:2)
From the article, it seems that the thing they are measuring to understand the nature of how this 'constant' changed is the light that eminated from the rest of the universe that is just reaching earth. The older light appears to show matter generally acting in one way, and the newer light appears to show matter acting in another way.
How did they isolate this one factor in sub-atomic formulae as the only feasible explanation? How did they eliminate things like universal gravity effects (gravity appears to be instant and with unlimited range), forces acting on the light over billions of years, or changing nature of the stars as that portion of the universe ages, thus changing the light coming from them?
This does qualify as one of those 'extrordinary claims' that themselves need both extrordinary proof and extrordinary qualification of what they are really stating.
:^)
Ryan Fenton
Re:Correct me if my interpretation is wrong here.. (Score:1)
Also, gravitational effects would shift all of the absorption lines they see uniformly, whereas what is observed is a relative shift between different sets of lines in the same atoms, which requires changes in the fine structure constant.
Re:Correct me if my interpretation is wrong here.. (Score:1)
This isn't necessarily true: The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say [ldolphin.org]
Re:Correct me if my interpretation is wrong here.. (Score:1)
Here we go again... (Score:3, Funny)
just like C (Score:2, Funny)
hack_universe() {
*(double *)&alpha += 1e-9;
}
// don't call this; the universe requires
// double-word aligned doubles
crash_universe() {
*(double *)(1+(char *)&alpha)) += 1e-9;
}
Already predicted by Standard Model of physics? (Score:2, Interesting)
Grand Unified Theories rely on all of the interaction strengths for all known forces (Strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force, and sometimes gravity) becoming the same at some energy scale earlier on during the formation of the Universe. In the present Universe, the strong force that holds quarks together is much stronger than the electromagnetic force, but if GUTs hold true then they were much closer earlier on.
See here [innerx.net] for a graph illustrating this effect, or rather its failure for one particular GUT theory. This is the first I found using a quick google search for "GUT" and "coupling constant"; it is a common plot shown for papers on GUTs in general.
Its been a couple of years since I studied this stuff. I'd be interested to know if this article is pointing to something new theoretically.
Re:Already predicted by Standard Model of physics? (Score:1)
You're right, it's not a new idea. The first physicist to suggest time variation of basic constants seriously was P.A.M. Dirac. His reasoning was a bit fanciful. He calculated certain dimensionless numbers by appropriately combining various dimensionful basic constants of physics and found that he got very large numbers.
Since the numbers were very large, and one knows that the universe is very old, Dirac proposed that the great age of the universe was the reason the dimensionless combinations were large numbers: it was related to the large age of the universe.
If this was true, it then followed that the fundamental constants had to be varying with time and would have been different in the very early universe.. This is called Dirac's `large numbers hypothesis' for obvious reasons. It's a wild, but a very imaginative suggestion.
Yes, but the kind of change of alpha being discussed in the article is most definitely not a part of the established standard model.
Strictly speaking the standard model is only partially unified: the electroweak part or SU(2)xU(1) is unified and matches well with experiment, but the strong interaction SU(3) is not so easy to unify with SU(2)xU(1). The simplest GUT to accomplish the SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) unification was the minimal SU(5) GUT, but it predicted decay of the proton at a rate which was experimentally ruled out some years ago by direct measurements.
The best bet for grand unification of strong, electromagnetic and weak interactions at the moment would be some form of what's called the minimal supersymmetric standard model. This theory is beyond the standard model because it predicts supersymmetric particles, which are so far unobserved.
But this theory is, like the standard model, basically a theory of particle physics alone. It doesn't even address gravity, much less the possible time variation over long times of fundamental constants evaluated at a *fixed* energy scale. Such a time variation breaks the Lorentz invariance of all of these theories. For that matter, such a variation breaks the general coordinate invariance of general relativity. If what is being said is true, and it is a very big if, it requires a radical change in the accepted theories.
Well, true, but you conflate several ideas here.
There are so-called running coupling constants in the standard model and in the various grand unified models (excluding gravity for now). So for example, if two electrons smash into eachother at very high energy, say 100 GeV or so, then the appropriate value of alpha to use in calculating their interactions is more like 1/127 than 1/137.
This running of the coupling strengths is well tested and is predicted by quantum field theory. If the strong, electromagnetic, and weak forces are actually part of a GUT, and the big bang theory is correct, then at some early time in the history of the universe, the average energy of interactions of electrons would have been 100 GeV for example.
At that time it would make sense, on average to use a value of alpha which is 1/127, but that in no way means that this larger value of alpha should be used at that time for two electrons which collide with much lower energy. If they collide with very low energy, the appropriate value of alpha is still 1/137 if the standard model is correct. You see the distinction?
The observations in question are actually of atomic transitions in very distant gas clouds, so they involve very low energy interactions of electrons with positively charged nuclei. So the running of the electromagnetic coupling, alpha, is not relevant to these measurements, and if any real deviation in the observed atomic transitions can be shown from what is observed at the present day, then it means atomic structure has changed. That would mean the laws of physics are really varying as the universe ages. It's quite radical. It means throwing away the standard model and general relativity.
Yes, this is an effect of the running coupling constant in GUTs, together with the big bang theory. At high temperatures, like existed in the early universe, all of the couplings would have looked the same.
Yes, interestingly enough, such plots showing how the electromagnetic, weak and strong couplings run to the same value at a given, fixed energy were actually used early on to argue that grand unification of the SU(5) type probably was occurring. There were errors in the original calculations though, and it turns out that the couplings don't actually become the same, they miss as shown in the plot you reference. That's one of the reasons why supersymmetric unification is proposed: you have more parameters and you can make the three couplings meet ... it's not really a very good
argument if you think about it a bit!
Yes it is certainly pointing to something new, if the result is correct. But there are many problems with it.
There is the obvious unpleasantness that you don't really see a clean result: you can't really say that we see that spectral line X in atom Y was different at such and such a time and place than it is now. Instead you must look at a statistical analysis of many lines over many gas clouds, and extract a best guess on the value of alpha as a function of time (actually, redshift) in the universe, using a theoretical calculation of how atomic lines should depend on alpha. It has to be said that such a calculation is far from trivial to do for complex multi-electron atoms, and in fact can't even be done all that accurately.
Indeed, people who did the same kind of observations previously, concentrated on alkali metal doublets which are produced in (effectively) simple single electron atoms, for which one has a much better hope of understanding the theory well. These observations produce a null result for the variation of alpha, it's only when you add in the more complex metals as these researchers do, that you see a non-zero effect.
My feeling is that it is very interesting, but it's most likely that when a more extended analysis and more observations are done, there will probably be nothing left of the effect, except possibly a better null result than one had with the alkali doublets.
That's all BS (Score:2)
Everyone knows that constant's value is 42.
Relavitivity may have to change. (Score:2)
here [lanl.gov] and here [lanl.gov].
Finally a changing speed of light is predicted in a DSR approach here [arxiv.org].
Re:Relavitivity may have to change. (Score:2)
Let me explain. Both relativity and geodesics posit that we must modify the notion of space-time or space in the large scale, to deal with the fact that the "flat model of space/time" is inappropriate in some conditions.
In geodesy, the size of the earth is a constant that you use to convert angles into length, and in relativity, the speed of light is something that you convert time to length.
Assuming that you have other ways of recovering time and length from ancient sources, you can recover therefore an ancient speed of light.
Actually, the book that the constants table comes from in the first place, goes into the physics of defining standards [including endlength prototypes], and their dependence on different universal constants, in some length.... The speed of light in this is not assumed constant...
I've been trying to tell people this (Score:2)
Since modern attempts to unify the fundamental physical forces began, gravity in particular has presented a difficulty for scientists, and it appears that the solution may be changes in constants we previously believed to be, well, constant.
This could have far-reaching implications for the way we think about science, and especially our understanding of what science can tell us. It seems possible that our disciplines of science and natural history might actually be driven farther apart, as we lose any reliable base indicators on which to base assumptions about the past.
For some in the scientific orthodoxy, this is anathema and they will fight it tooth and nail to the bitter end, for it forces them to accept a reality that they have long denied. The liberals constantly tell us that because of the relatively slow travel of light from distant galaxies, it must have been traveling for long periods of time, and the universe must therefore be quite old (billions and billions... you know the drill). Now their rationalizing will be laid bare and they must admit that the Bible has again withstood vigorous attempts at disproof, that they have a Creator and are therefore accountable to Him.
Re:I've been trying to tell people this (Score:2, Insightful)
Oops. OK once again, properly formatted. Way to mess the post up.
It seems possible that our disciplines of science and natural history might actually be driven farther apart, as we lose any reliable base indicators on which to base assumptions about the past.
AFAIK natural history is science. Besides if you read the article you would realise we don't loose anything, because the experiment can show what alpha was. If you know how a constant has changed you can take it into account so your indicator is fine, although the maths becomes more complex.
For some in the scientific orthodoxy, this is anathema and they will fight it tooth and nail to the bitter end, for it forces them to accept a reality that they have long denied. The liberals constantly tell us that because of the relatively slow travel of light from distant galaxies, it must have been traveling for long periods of time, and the universe must therefore be quite old (billions and billions... you know the drill).
What has being a liberal got to do with anything? Can only liberals be scientists? Non-liberals must be Creationists? Not to mention all kinds of other methods of dating planets, stars, rocks and the like.
Now their rationalizing will be laid bare and they must admit that the Bible has again withstood vigorous attempts at disproof, that they have a Creator and are therefore accountable to Him.
And all logic breaks down. How do you get to this from a possible slight change in alpha? Lets assume that we find the constants do change over time and it overthrows current thinking on the creation of the universe it doesn't prove Creationism or a Creator.
If you want to believe in Creationism as a matter of faith that's your choice. If you want to advocate it as science you need to do real science (work from evidence to conclusion, not backwards, actually have some evidence etc.) and simply attacking current theories doesn't really help.
Creationism doesn't have magic win by default clause, disproving another theory (technically Creationism isn't even a theory, its a hypothesis) does nothing at all to prove Creationism or that the Bible is literal truth.
Mant
Dear Universe (Score:2)
-The Almighty.
Re:Speed of light (Score:2, Informative)
The speed of light in other materials varies quite a bit. That's what causes refraction to occur. Things like diamonds have a low speed of light (high refraction).
Re:Speed of light (Score:1)
Re:Speed of light (Score:2)
Relativity arose largely due to the mystery of the (short-term) constancy of c. It is this constancy that implies contraction at high velocities, dilation etc.
Re:Speed of light (Score:1)
Re:Speed of light (Score:3, Insightful)
No. c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The slowed light down by passing it through a certain material.
Re:Speed of light (Score:2, Interesting)
Suppose the speed of light through medium X is 38 MPH...
Speed of light through a vaccuum is 186K MPS...
Einstein says you can't go faster than the speed of light in a vaccuum.
Does that mean if you traveled trhough "medium X" that the new maximum speed limit is now 38MPH?
Is light ALWAYS the fastest thing in any given medium?
Seeing as how they slowed light by passing it through "medium X" could there be a way to make a medium that would speed up light - say the speed of light through "medium Y" is 500K MPS? If so, wouldn't that mean the amount of energy to go that fast would be reduced (if not, then the photon that started going faster would have acquired energy from somethin-or-other)? And if so, wouldn't that allow faster-than-light(-through-what-we-call-space) speeds?
I dunno - I watched a Star Trek marathon today. I've absorbed too much fantasy physics to think...
Re:Speed of light (Score:3, Informative)
It's not possible to go faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. However, it is possible to go faster than light in some medium.
This actually happens fairly often in nuclear physics. Radiation given off by, say, radioactive waste in a nuclear power plant's storage pool can go faster than the speed of light in water. When it does this, you get the eerie blue glow everyone imagines with radioactivity (which usually isn't really there).
This effect is called Cherenkov radiation, unless I've forgotten how to spell.
It is not possible for any medium to speed up light, so far as in known.
The simplest way to understand why light slows down in a medium is to think of it this way:
Light is zooming along at its full vacuum speed, right? But, there are all these atoms there! Zillions of them! So, light runs into an atom. Luckily for light, the way this works is that it temporarily "charges" the atom, which then almost immediately (but not quite) "discharges" a photon going in pretty much the same direction with the same frequency. Depending on how many atoms there are, and how the atoms behave, this can have varying effects on the light.
This isn't really particularly accurate, but it's easy to understand and more or less vaguely similar to how it works.
Of course, IANAP.
Re:Speed of light (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Speed of light (Score:2)
You can also do an experement yourself with a high bandwidth op amp. Make a current follower circuit (hook the output up to the - input) but introduce a long delay into that connection with a long cable. Now send a gaussian pulse into the + input and watch the output with an oscilliscope. If your op amp has high enough bandwith, the output pulse will appear before the input pulse. What is happening is that the very leading edge of the pulse is being amplified into the whole pulse in order to satisfy the golden rule of op amps: the two inputs must be at the same voltage.
This (and all other systems like it) only work on waves that are analytic functions, which means that then entire function can be completely reconstructed from the behavior at one point. Analytic functions cannot be used to transmit information, so we still cannot use this to communicate faster than light.
Re:Speed of light (Score:2)
Now, on to the specifics. This medium would be what falls loosely under the category "exotic matter". Creating such material poses serious problems itself. Also, most of the things that physicists lump into that category would be dangerous and/or short lived. You'd probably never be able to manufacture macroscopic quantities of the substance, and you'd only ever see it on the readouts of million dollar sensors because it would evaporate almost instantly.
Which brings us to the real question, if they do manage to produce tripole magnets in the new big accelerator, will the new polarization be "East" or "West"? *grin* Gotcha.
Re:Speed of light (Score:4, Informative)
No. c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The slowed light down by passing it through a certain material.
Actually, this is also, technically, incorrect. The speed of light is a constant. Always. Light always moves at light speed. Now, the time it takes for light to pass through various mediums is different, but this is not because the light is being slowed down. It's because the light is hitting the atoms in the medium and is kicking the electrons in the atom to a higher energy state. When the electron falls down from its higher energy state, it in turn release a particle of light. You could go so far as to say that it's the same particle of light. With denser mediums, light takes longer to get through. In the sun, for example, the plasma surrounding the fusion core is so dense, the light from that fusion takes many millions of years to reach the surface. During those millions of years, the light is always moving at light speed. It just keeps running into stuff.
Re:Speed of light (Score:2)
When a photon puts an atom into a higher energy state, and then is released from this atom, how long does this process take? The length of the atom at light speed? Or longer, and if so, how much longer?
Re:Speed of light (Score:2)
Re:Speed of light (Score:2)
Re:Changing speed of light (Score:2, Insightful)
Such a change would be undetectable. All you can do is distinguish the cases of c being 0, finite>0, or infinite. Real natural constants have to be dimensionless, so a change can not be compensated by rescaling measuring rods and clocks. The fine structure constant, of course, is dimensionless.
Re:Changing speed of light (Score:1)
Wrong (about evolution not being a science).
Evolution is a major part of biology (a science). It is studied by scientists, and pubished in scientific journals.
If your not specifically talking about evolution but rather the creation of the first lifeform, then this is strictly evolution (it isn't important to the theory of evolution, whether or not the first lifeform was placed by God, planted by aliens, or arose from chemical soups (which is a hypothesis and still science)).
Re:Changing speed of light (Score:1)
Philosophical musing: all life, and varied species arose through natural selection and genetic mutations
The first is observable, and has been proven: hence, it is science.
The second is not observable, has not been proven except with philosophical arguments, hence it is philosophy.
Look up science and find out what qualifies for that title. Just because a scientific journal mentions God does that make it unscientific? What if a scientific journal mentions some observed facts and then the scientist gives his unproven thoughts on what it might mean? Is it still scientific? The scientist is simply mixing science with philosophy.
Re:Changing speed of light (Score:2)
It is a science; evolution and development of new or changed life forms has been demonstrated many times. For example, bacteria evolved to fight penicillin; new strains of cold virus appear every year; AIDS was unheard of until recently, etc. etc.
Re:Changing speed of light (Score:1)
Re:Changing speed of light (Score:1)
Re:Changing speed of light (Score:1)
Look up science and find out what qualifies for that title.
As a practicing scientist, I know what science is. I am, however, skeptical as too whether or not you do.
Just because a scientific journal mentions God does that make it unscientific?
It depends on the context. Also a unscientific article does not make a unscientific journal. And what relevance this has too evolution (which is god neutral) escapes me.
What if a scientific journal mentions some observed facts and then the scientist gives his unproven thoughts on what it might mean? Is it still scientific? The scientist is simply mixing science with philosophy.
Science doesn't deal with proofs (except in a mathematical sense). This is highly suggestive that you don't know what is and what isn't science.
BTW, what you described is calling hypothesising. It's a important part of science.
Re:Changing speed of light (Score:1)
Here [csicop.org] is a good definition on science that I found from a quick google search. But as you are a scientist, I shouldn't need to tell you that the theory of evolution is not science.
If you are convinced that evolution is scientific, then perhaps you can present to me a falsafiable statement that can be tested using the process of science.
Re:Changing speed of light (Score:2)
Why do they bother? If there really is an invisible man who runs the universe, any attempt at scientific reasoning or analysis is futile.
This guy could change all of the physical rules, alter all physical evidence, and even fsck with your mind at will. In fact, under this scenario, the evidence that has been left for us (strange bones carefully arranged into historical families, radioisotopes, lightwaves streaming in from the sky, etc.) is clearly meant to deliberately mislead us.
If you really buy into this outlook on life, you'd be better off just ignoring the physical world and focus on trying to interpret the meanings of the mystical texts that are supposed to hold more credibility than physical evidence.
Re:Changing speed of light (Score:1)
Presumable God could change reality at will. He could change it so that planetary orbits were complicated spirals, figure 8's, etc, and change our minds so that this made sense.
Of course, that scenario would make all learning useful. I believe that the bones n' stuff can be explained, I don't just say God put them there to mislead us. I don't believe that this world has been given the appearance of old age to deceive us. I think it has the appearance of a young earth. I tried not to enter a creation/evolution discussion since it's a waste of time. Just go look up radio-carbon dating failures then you might understand, but don't pester me for details.
Re:Changing speed of light (Score:2)
I'm no bible scholar, but I seem to remember that the earliest parts of genesis don't say when the universe was created, only that it was. Perhaps the universe can be 14 billion yrs old, without screwing up their retarded little mythology? Oh wait, that's right, astrophysics also dates the earth as being 4 billion years old. Maybe they oughtta work on that problem first, before taking on the universe?
Evolution is a process. It did, and does happen. If God walks up to me, someday, just for the irony factor or something, it will not, in any way, disprove evolution. Duh. This is why religion is without doubt, full of retards. Do you argue about whether Detroit engineers created the new SUV, or whether it evolved from the pickup and station wagons of the 50's? No, because both are true.
Science isn't out to disprove God, it just wants to know how things work. As such, it can only ever disprove or confirm the process, not some supernatural intent.
Re:Changing speed of light (Score:1)
And don't make out creationists as being idiots without understanding them. Go look up some radio-carbon dating failures among other things, and you will soon discover (if you actually bother to look) that the methods used to show that the earth is millions of years old have failed numerous times in situations where the date of a sample is known.
Don't criticise when you obviously don't understand the issue.
Re:Changing speed of light (Score:2)
But, rather than give up after a first try, a scientist attempts to figure out what the problem was, and design a new test that may be more accurate. That is what science is about.
The earth is, by all accounts, not millions of years old. It is billions of years old. Order of magnitude. Or at least, that's the best guess we can make, knowing what we know. If someone came up with something approaching evidence that it was only 600 million years old, I would listen. It would have to be pretty damn convincing, but I like oddball theories, and everyone gets a chance with me... somtimes two of them. But even 600m, which is a slighter difference than you are suggesting, is rather big. 3.7 billion yrs difference. And it would have to offer alternate explanations for all sorts of different things. Frankly, I can't imagine anything that might allow for it to be that young.
So this is where you get to tell me, that it's even younger yet, something on the order of 10,000 yrs old. Good luck trying to explain that.
I don't think that death, famine, disease or killing are ever good things. You see, that's a leap of logic there. I said that it simply was a process that can explain alot of the things in the world that we see around us, I made no statement that I preferred these things, that they were some kind of goal to be pursued, or anything like that. But they happened. They're still happening. If they tend to induce a phenomena known as evolution, and it's obvious they've been happening a very long time (though we might debate home long), is it so unbelievable that evolution might have been happening a very long time?
I'm sorry that I called creationists idiots. It is very frustrating for me. They are simply emotionally vulnerable people (and at one time or another, we are all vulnerable) that turned to the only people who claimed to want to help them. This is sad. Even their own bible warns against such, I believe. Something about the shepherd leading the sheep astray.
The universe is strange, without a doubt. And it's unimaginably large... there's plenty of room left for a supreme being to being hiding somewhere. But if such does exist, what will he have to say about you acting so silly and letting your emotions blind you to what you see around you?
Oh, and BTW, much of what we call suffering is the result of sin. People hurting one another, for malice's sake, hurting themselves. The bible thumpers don't have a monopoly on morality.
Re:Changing speed of light (Score:1)
As for God hiding somewhere in the universe, from my experience He is a lot more visible than that. Also, don't apply Scriptures to people without understanding it's context. My beliefs do not blind me, more than most I know I am willing to consider opposing opinions. However, I also don't accept something just because the majority of people believe in it.
I was also saying that death, disease, famine must be considered good IF one says that the Bible and evolution are compatible. This is simply because after God created everything (including man), He said that it was "very good". Since this involved 4.5 billion years of death, disease and famine, then one must believe these are good if one is to accept the Biblical creation history. I don't believe they are good either...I don't believe they played any part in the creation of our species.
Since I have already typed it up elsewhere, here is a list of articles I found very informative (a select few). Tell me what you think:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/382.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Mag
Significant is this one: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazin
The following quote from it:
:
When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there-we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age? http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazin
Here's one about genetic mutations and loss of information:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/doc
An interesting article on erosion as evidence for young earth:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/41
Young earth evidence:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/a
Population problems and evidence:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/a
If you find yourself interested in reading more, you can read through many of the articles in the magazines listed here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/
Re:Changing speed of light (Score:2)
When I used the term "hiding", don't take offense at that. I meant no connotations of cowardice, apathy, etc. By "hiding", I meant something along the lines of "quarks hide well below the level of the atom". Which while we can probably agree they are there for certain (we can agree on that, can't we?), I sure as hell have never seen one. Have you? We found them, in such a way though, that they are mostly undeniable. Perhaps it may be that way for god too, some day (and he is certainly deniable by some).
Again, the bible says that it was "very good". (I don't know this, taking your word for it). In the KJV, it's greek/aramaic, translated to latin, translated to english. Do you know how many subtlies can be lost? Let's say you go back and read it in the original language though. Even there, can you be sure just which subtlies you're still missing? Perhaps it was meant, that the fact that there was a humanity finally was a good thing. The order out of chaos, the light of new souls burning in the universe. Good does sometimes come out of evil acts, you know, and does so without validating the cause.
If a women is raped, and raises the child, loving it, does that imply the rape was a good thing? No.
So the process of evolution isn't necessarily a morally good thing. Besides, most christians see nothing wrong with eating meat, or a predator hunting. Among animals, this is neither evil or good, in the sense that those words apply to mankind. Am I wrong? So the death/disease/famine doesn't even apply at all, up until you get to the hominids. I certainly don't sympathize with those first little amoebas that died in the first billion years of this planet. Should I? Even if a few starved? Now, I agree that once things got close, that is nothing to make light of. Then again, it's possible that a few of the gaps you see in the evolution of proto-human group, are actually gaps. Maybe "he" skipped over those parts. Would be a practical solution.
Plus, he would have had a chance to fix the placement of some arteries (on the back of the head, iirc) that just wouldn't work for modern humans. It's still a mystery, how they managed to switch locations in a short amount of time... and without the switch, your brain would fry before you were 4 yrs old.
I don't have time to explain the various geological dating methods, or why and when they will fail. And I'm far from an expert, in any event. But you have to ask yourself if you'd even accept the results at all. If you're just nitpicky about bad results, science likes that. Let's us weed out all the bullshit. And remember, there are a few ultra-othodox rabi's that still believe the world is flat... simply because the Torah describes the "4 corners of the world".
Heck, unlike some, I don't even have a problem with you having sneaking suspcions what the results will be, before the experiment begins. Just as long as you accept them even if you don't like what you see. And just so you know I'm not picking on you, there are a few atheists with that same problem.
Re:Changing speed of light (Score:1)
Did you read any of the articles I posted? Some of them look at two things:
* The date given compared to the real date
* The date given compared to two different, established dating methods
The tests failed in both circumstances.
As for the Rabbi's that believe in a flat earth, I am not like that. I don't see how I should be expected to accept evolution when I have seen evidence fit to sink a ship. I would accept evolution if the problems with it could be answered, and if evidence could be presented to support it. The only evidence I can see that supports it is the ultra-old dates, and these have been demonstrated to be wildly innacurate for known dates (not just a little bit innacurate). Look at those articles and you will see some of the reasons why I believe what I do.
Again, I don't see why people talk to me as if I believe just for religious reasons. If I thought there was evidence to support it I would accept it.
Quick note: my translation of the Bible (New King James) is translated from Hebrew texts for the Old Testament and Greek texts for the New Testament - not from Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic to Latin to English. The best available text is probably the Septuagint for the Old Testament - written in ancient greek, since it was translated from older copies of the Hebrew than we have today.
Re:Changing speed of light (Score:2)
Think of every single interpretation where good doesn't rule out evolution at all, and every single interpretation that absolutely denies it. Write all of them, even write down the possibilities that don't clean fall into either category. Then eliminate the ridiculous ones. If you come up with less than 10 total interpretations, you aren't trying hard enough. I'm willing to bet there will be several left, and at least one for each category.
I agree, it's not simple. And if it somehow shows you that evolution might possibly fit... what then? Will you be sent to hell for even considering such, if it turns out you were right all along, and God has to correct the mistaken notion? At the worst, it will give you some insight how creation might have worked, if only a little (much more interesting would be figuring out how the very first life forms would have developed/been created. No one claims to know that, after all).
Now, if you get that far, and realize I'm not some demon sent from hell to destroy your faith, I invite you to go just a bit further. It may take some work, mind you. But try to find some books that deal with geological dating. If you can (there isn't much of it), find the most rabidly atheistic texts on the subject you can. Chuckle to yourself all the time they waste promoting atheism, but look for some of the truths they may have stumbled onto, in their delusions. Then, move on to the religious-neutral texts (which you may have to do anyway). They will be full of history on the mistakes made in the past. Even scientists aren't often satisified with the results. Mind you, most don't have a stake in whether a rock is 13.7 million years old, or if it's really 13.9 million years old (though even then, sometimes if you're the person who first said 13.7, you're reputation is on the line). In many cases, there isn't alot of agreement. Sometimes, the best they manage, is "this one has to be really old, can't be any younger than 1 million". Other times, they are complete anomalies, that they won't even venture guesses.
But this isn't proof that it's crackpot science. It's evidence that the whole thing is undergoing refinement. No grand conspiracies lurk here, to hide the truth. Again, even if you become convinced that the age of the earth is much older than you once thought, does it somehow disprove the existence of God? Hardly. I might even have an explanation, if you care to hear.
You claim that he created the earth in seven days (forgive any minor mistakes). Yet, the earth itself determines just how long a day is. Not the sun, not anything external. Does the term day have any exact meaning, if the earth isn't fully formed, and rotating? The bible doesn't say that it was created in 3.45 x 10^29 vibrations of the cesium atom, or anything like that. Just "day" (or am I wrong?). And then, there is an old tradition of even using the term "day" poetically, when it doesn't mean ~24 hours at all. It is possible, that maybe it means that God created the world in seven stages, each of indeterminate (and not even equal) duration? And finally, it would be interesting to know which word is used in the original Hebrew, and if it was ever used in a context where it doesn't mean approx. 12 hours of daylight + approx. 12 hours of night. And the absolutely best part of all this is, I'm not even coming close to asking you to change a core part of your beliefs. Your morality, which I respect, isn't altered by this at all. And you might even come to appreciate yet another perspective of the bible... one where there is much more poetry in addition to the lessons it teaches you about life. I find it hard to believe that someone could be so inspired to write down the story of creation, without attempting to use metaphor of one form or another. Neither atheist or believer will deny that the entire event was anything but awesome, mind you (and what could be more awesome than a being that would think nothing of performing a creation that spans several billion years?).
And please, don't take this the wrong way. But christians in particular, seem to want to argue what I would think amount to insignificant details, when all it does it make them look like fools to the public. And the greatest irony is, instead you could be using that effort to teach them the real truths that you really do have, which the non-religious seem to lack. Why? A god that teaches his worshippers to run around trying to ban biology textbooks isn't very worthy compared to a God that can't be bothered to worry about that because his followers are busy trying to teach people to be decent to one another (no matter what the details of their origin are).
Re:Changing speed of light (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What if 1/alpha^3 = 2573380 (an INTEGER) (Score:2)
Not only that, but a quick search shows that a guy named S. Sarg has found that same integer, 2573380, cropping up as a dimensionless frequency ratio in the hydrogen atom on page 7-19 of his book on BSM theory [helical-structures.org].