Slashdot Log In
Fundamental Constant Possibly Inconsistent
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:29 PM
from the those-wacky-constants dept.
from the those-wacky-constants dept.
dylanduck writes "Cosmologists have begun thinking that yet another fundamental constant of nature is, er, not constant. The constant in question is the ratio of a proton's mass to that of an electron. It governs the strong nuclear force but there's no explanation for why that ratio should be constant. If true it would provide support for string theory, which predicts extra spatial dimensions." From the article: "Researchers at the Free University in Amsterdam in the Netherlands and the European Southern Observatory in Chile discovered the variation in mu. They did it by comparing the spectrum of molecular hydrogen gas in the laboratory to what it was in quasars 12 billion light years away. The spectrum depends on the relative masses of protons and electrons in the molecule."
Related Stories
[+]
Evidence for String Theory? 258 comments
Izeickl writes "PhysOrg.com is reporting that scientists working at a neutrino detector nicknamed AMANDA at the South Pole report that evidence for string theory may soon be coming. Extra dimensions predicted by string theory may affect observed numbers of certain neutrinos and this is what the scientists will be looking for. The article further states 'No more than a dozen high-energy neutrinos have been detected so far. However, the current detection rate and energy range indicate that AMANDA's larger successor, called IceCube, now under construction, could provide the first evidence for string theory and other theories that attempt to build upon our current understanding of the universe.'"
[+]
Test for String Theory Developed 155 comments
inexion writes "PhyOrg is reporting that SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) scientists have found a way to test the revolutionary theory, which posits that there are 10 or 11 dimensions in our universe. This past December, Joanne Hewett, Thomas Rizzo, and student Ben Lillie published an article in Physical Review Letters which shows theoretically how to measure the number of dimensions that comprise the universe. By determining how many dimensions exist, Hewett and Rizzo hope to either confirm or repudiate string theory under specific conditions which would consist of creating and examining 'micro-black holes', which could be formed by smashing two high energy protons together. Using the predicted decay properties of the emitted neutrinos, Hewett and Rizzo solved equations to find that our universe may have more than 10 or 11 dimensions -- too many dimensions to be explained by string theory."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Thus proving once and for all (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thus proving once and for all (Score:4, Insightful)
Then I'm going to hell, and I won't even know why.
Parent
Re:Thus proving once and for all (Score:4, Funny)
--
Constants aren't.
Variables are.
- Murphy's (Computer) Law
Parent
Electron Constants not Constant??!! (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089869/ [imdb.com]
Ob. Farnsworth quote (Score:5, Funny)
Cubert: That's impossible. You can't go faster than the speed of light.
Farnsworth: Of course not. That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208.
Parent
Apparently, the meaning of "constant" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Apparently, the meaning of "constant" (Score:4, Funny)
1!=2 is, for example, always true, except for with very small values of 2 or very large values of 1. Possibly you need both small values of 2 and large values of 1.
Parent
Re:Apparently, the meaning of "constant" (Score:5, Funny)
Well, that's what God gets for using C++. You think you've got a well-designed system, then you realize that to make your next set of changes work you're going to have to throw in a bunch of const_casts or mutables.
You can tell He's new to object oriented programming, too - he's got this whole overeager class hierarchy of tau derived from muon derived from electron, top derived from charm derived from up, and on and on, but then when it's finally time to put together the universe He gets sick of the whole thing and builds all His matter from the base classes!
Parent
Hang on a second... (Score:3, Insightful)
How the hell does that work?
Re:Hang on a second... (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget the proton is a composite of quarks. So the mass of the proton is a function of the mass of the quarks and the binding energy. A hack but E=mc^2, so m(proton) = m(quarks) - (binding energy)/c^2. The binding energy changes if the strengths of the forces that bind it change. This means that a change in the electromagnetic force (e.g. changing alpha fine structure constant) or the strong force will change the mass also. Of course, the mass of the electrons or quarks could have changed as well :P
Parent
Re:Hang on a second... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
In other news.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In other news.. (Score:5, Funny)
I remember one time, in my youth, while partaking of illicit mind-altering substances, looking at a window. More specifically, a small piece of stained-glass hanging from the window. Hanging by a suction cup.
A circular suction cup.
This piece of stained glass had been hanging on that very window for years.
Deep in thought, looking at this stained glass, I thought to myself "You know, if I was God, I'd probably round off pi to a million decimal places or so - it wouldn't really effect anything and it would make things much simpler". At which point, this stained glass, hanging from a circular suction cup, which had been there, unmoving, for years, due to a failure in the circular suction cup, fell to the ground and shattered.
I learned my lesson - don't mess with universal constants.
Parent
Provides evidence for string theory? (Score:5, Interesting)
And yes, before you start, I know what I'm talking about.
So there's this atom .... (Score:5, Funny)
"I think I have lost an electron!"
Another atom asks..
"Are you sure?"
The atom says
"I'm positive!"
I'll be here all week, enjoy the veal.....
Re:So there's this atom .... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:So there's this atom .... (Score:5, Funny)
The bartender says, "For you, no charge."
Parent
FORTRAN (Score:5, Funny)
What is mass? (Score:5, Insightful)
But a change in the ratio of their masses might shed some light on exactly what mass is to begin with. Yes, it's the ability to curve space, and also the resistance to being accelerated. But never mind the p/e ratio being fixed, no one really understands why the individual values are what they are to begin with.
For example, something that always gets me is the muon. Identical to the electron in virtually every way (charge, apparent point-like non-structure, lepton) except is has a mass roughly 207 times as great. Why? What does it have 207 times more of than the electron does to make it 207 times more efficient at curving space? What kind of goo is there that makes it 207 times more resistant to acceleration? And if it's truly a fundamental particle, as we suspect for leptons, why 207-point-something?
It nags at me.
Re:Does this mean (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Does this mean (Score:5, Funny)
Even if he did, he wouldn't know how to use his digits.
Parent
Re:Does this mean (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, that was true since Einstein: The value of pi as you learned it is only valid in Euklidean (flat) space, and our space is Riemannian (curved). However, to your relieve, the Riemannian space is locally Euclidean, so if you restrict yourself to a small enough volume, your 100 digits are accurate again. Unless you get into trouble with quantum physics (I'm now too lazy to calculate if you could get 100 digits of pi right on Earth without getting close to the Planck length).
Parent
Ten Minutes to Wapner (Score:4, Funny)
Out of curiosity, are you an excellent driver?
Parent
Re:The Dawn of Quantish Physics ? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Intelligent Design? (O/T) (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, to stay a little bit on topic, the theoretically observed change in mu is extremely small. Physicists don't know why mu should be about 1836 instead of about 1836.5 or 3 or 11,296,428. My understanding is (and I am not an expert on this), that really small change in mu like we're talking about here wouldn't significantly affect the universe and it would still look largely like it does, but somewhat small change in mu, like an order of magnitude would, a lot. This bugs physicists because they don't know why it is what it is. Why do we have the universe we have instead of something drastically different like one that collapsed or blew apart 10 minutes after the Big Bang? The only answer they can offer is the anthropic principle: It is the way it is because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to notice.
The existence of God does not hinge on the constancy of mu. This doesn't even disprove intelligent design, which is as bad from a theological perspective as it is from a scientific perspective, being vain in both schools. Several prominent Catholic theologians have stated as much. The perplexing question of why fundamental particles are the way they are and therefore allow us to exist does not constitute a proof of God's existence, but they are rather suggestive.
For the record, I think a brief discussion of creation concepts would be appropriate in social studies (as part of a survey of religions) or in philosophy classes (the study of being) in public schools, but not in science. I want to point out that if God created the phenomena which allows and upon which we base our science, it's unlikely that we would be able to prove or disprove His existence directly through science.
I wasn't going to reply, but it seemed worthwhile to Question this statement. Who is controlled here? The billions of faithful who find meaning in life? In what way are we controlled? By adherence to principles that are conducive to the betterment of mankind like "love your neighbor as yourself" and "Thou shalt not kill?" What is the gain for these scheming, evil leaders and their P/R man? You don't exactly see a lot of priests pimping it up with 22" rims on their Lincolns and an escort on each arm. Celibacy, the difficulties of working with a faith-community, itchy robes, and a badly off-key choir...now there's a good reason to cook up a religion. I'm willing to guarantee you the overwhelming majority of religious leaders really do believe in the faith they profess. Yes there is a large degree of misdirection and a few unscrupulous groups that are nothing more than pyramid schemes or printing companies, but the basic precepts of most religions out there are founded, promoted, and executed with good intent.
Parent